site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   23855 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 26, 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 don't see how this is a problem caused by the family's race rather than state policy.

State policy doesn't fall from the sky.

Which race do you think supports helicopter parenting and infantilization the most and which the least?

Do you think CPS and other related institutions having ridiculous protocols for how to deal with certain things is downstream from helicopter parents or parents who leave their infants in the bathtub unattended?

I think the protocols are set by using helicopter parents as the baseline (and probably the opinion makers) and the bathtub parents as scaremongering. In practice, that means a plurality of less-than-helicopter parents get raked by CPS because of a few bathtub parents, who are outliers and should not be counted.

If the nonwhite underclass is used by the state as an example to set the policies for regular people, it is a problem with the state.

I'd assume that to be completely inaccurate, and that the protocols are designed around both the worst and most common cases that land on the institutions desk. And the internal pressure on the decision makers mostly comes from how to prevent the 'big bad' cases that make the headlines from ever happening again. The parenting styles of those who work in those institutions, if they even have children, isn't a factor at all. It's a separate world to them. One to be managed, one to be lived in.

If the state decides to house a hundred odd million non-whites then yeah, that's a 'state issue'. But it's not possible to maintain first world institutions that are saddled with a third world population to manage. Especially whilst not being allowed to differentiate between folks despite how obviously different they are.

Which demographic are the ones reading the sordid headlines and demanding that the state Does Something About It?

I think most demographics are horrified by stories of child neglect, abuse and death. But if you want to pin the want to organize to prevent such things on white people specifically, sure. Is there a point that follows?

The point that follows is that it is not a mismatch caused by a white projecting reasonable norms onto nonwhites. It is a white (a subset really) projecting unreasonable norms onto everyone.

More comments

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