site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   24639 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What stops men from writing stories where they're already wonderful and people just don't realize it?

Isn’t this the underlying theme of most superhero fiction?

No. Most superhero fiction is about men who are ridiculously competent and powerful... but alas have enemies to match. And in the origin stories, they tend to have to become wonderful people. Peter Parker has to make a moral error which kills his Uncle Ben in order to learn. Superman has had more origin stories than I can count, but in many of them as a boy he uses his powers selfishly and has to be corrected. Batman's origin story is creating himself from nothing but money and his butler after the death of his parents.

This trope predates superhero fiction. Arguably it is the main story arc of The Epic of Gilmagesh, which would make it quite literally the oldest one in the book.

Man is born strong by divine gift, learns moral wisdom in order to direct his strength towards a happy ending, is the original plot; good man learns practical wisdom in order to become strong and achieve a happy ending is the modern variation.

Today's essay, class, is "Is Gilmagesh a Gary Stu?"

If he is, I'd ask a followup: What's the first major myth/story where the male lead isn't a Gary Stu?

I’ll give you Batman, but it’s definitely there in both Superman and especially, Spider-Man. Also not a superhero movie but It’s a Wonderful Life.

Also not a superhero movie but It’s a Wonderful Life.

I think that there is a subtle difference between It's a Wonderful Life and a female-focused story where society discovers how wonderful the woman is. (For example the Cinderella tale.)

In It's a Wonderful Life, the main character makes various sacrifices -- he partially loses his hearing saving his brother; he cancels his honeymoon to save his bank; he never makes it out of Bedford Falls despite his burning desire to travel. And so on.

So it's not just the world discovering how great he is. Rather, the main character is suffering and sacrificing to prove to the world how great he is.

By contrast, Cinderella is made to suffer (by doing household chores) but that's not to prove that she is great; it's not to earn her stripes; it's not to accomplish anything at all, other than to (narratively) show that society (as personified by her wicked stepmother) doesn't appreciate her value and therefore mistreats her.

It's in It's a Wonderful Life (but note George is no neophyte; he actually has done things) and probably some but not all of the Superman origin stories, but Peter Parker refusing to stop a robber who later kills Uncle Ben is Spider Man's defining moment, and is definitely not about him being already wonderful.

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