site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23306 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.

More like establishing a precedent that Russia can extend its influence to European countries with military force. That's a big fucking change for Europe.

Yes. Russia. That huge expansionist imperial power, with the US and NATO, nations and entities halfway around the world, who are involved in someone else’s backyard. Makes total sense.

Yes, that huge expansionist power that has for years engaged in hybrid warfare against various European countries and keeps constantly publicly threatening them.

Sounds like we’re talking about the US.

What on earth does that have to do with Russian militaristic aggression?

Because that’s what your rant most accurately describes. The US is the one all the way over there. Russia isn’t meddling around in Canada.

Why would I give a fuck about Canada?

I know many people on Motte are completely incapable of understanding the world isn't composed of NPCs but some of us actually happen to live in those countries that Russia has been actively threatening and sabotaging for years.

Doesn’t seem like you’re inclined to argue this logically.

Be well.

No, I think most here understand people exist in the world with such strong personal reasons they're incapable or unwilling to analyze this situation from a 3rd person perspective.

Finland should stop antagonizing Russia, e.g., by joining an aggressive anti-Russian military alliance who has been expanding for decades up to Russia's borders and regularly threatens Russia.

The point of the other user's comment is to note there are two sides to this conflict and claiming Russia is bad because it's a large expansionist power is silly because Russia is responding in the context of a larger, more powerful expansionist power which has been antagonizing it for decades. Your description better describes NATO and the EU than it does Russia.

NATO is not aggressive. It's a defense pact of the EU and the US. The idea NATO would launch some sort of Barbarossa 2.0 is fanciful especially with the current Euro regimes. NATO was seen as a fading cold war relic until Russia started invading it's neighbors and annexing chunks of it. Countries voluntarily joining an alliance is entirely different from marching your soldiers across a border and annexing land.

Also prior to the war the last time NATO expanded east was 2004. Finland and Sweden joined because the Ukraine war terrified them. The Euros are rearming because the Ukraine war terrified them. NATO is becoming more of an EU alliance because of the war. Prior to it the Euros were happy to neglect their militaries and buy Russian gas.

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