site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16016 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 19, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am clearly speaking about TTSU, the flyer sending organization, which is a not real and serious organization.

I'm sorry, I guess I was steelmanning your argument. TTSU being fake is not relevant to the conversation, so I didn't expect you were actually trying to deflect the conversation there.

Not relevant, "the fake group said true things while pretending to represent a real group" doesn't make them a real organization.

It does make TTSU being fake completely irrelevant though.

TTSU being fake is not relevant to the conversation, so I didn't expect you were actually trying to deflect the conversation there.

How is the organization that literally sent the flyers not relevant? If it wasn't for them, this conversation would not exist! They are the most relevant group in the discussion.

How is the organization that literally sent the flyers not relevant?

Because of the content of the flyers. If it accurately represents the opinions of TENT and links to their resources, it doesn't matter who sent them or why.

This is silly. If you set up a propaganda organisation pretending to be the UK labour party, and you send out flyers in broken English saying "vote Labour for the sake of the coming caliphate" that doesn't make it true that Labour is a muslim extremist party. Even if some Labour councillors genuinely think this.

It may be true anyway. The attitude of trans campaigners has been closer to that letter than I'd like. But fake evidence is not evidence.

No, hold on. There recently was a case like the one that you describe and there I would agree with your logic.

OTOH, the argument would not apply, if the Bexley Council did have the actual statements the impersonators attributed to them posted proudly on their official website, and only took them down after an unwanted audience was linked to them via this sort of letter.

In the second case we are not talking about "it may be true" in the "they deny it now, but might do it anyway in the future" sense, we are talking about it in the "they literally said that this is what they want" sense.

The OP contains an archive link dated prior to any of this drama, with statements proving that the texts were an accurate representation of their beliefs.

Ah, you mean this. Yes, then it certainly seems fair to indict them on the basis of their own statements. Though IMO the senders of those fake letters should be prosecuted; politics is dirty enough without false flags going up every which way.

Sure, if there's a law against it, throw the book at them. You can expose this sort of thing in a more honest manner.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats