site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6706 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Seems like nothing burger to me. You can probably get my identity by putting it into a LLM and tracing for linguistic patterns.

But IMO 100% never get in a helicopter. At a lesser certainty don’t get in a private plane. Some of the more corporate ones may be fine. If you have a private plane maybe just take IG photos and leave it on the ground. I’m probably going too far saying this but it’s definitely an area where you need to it the right way.

Unless you get into extreme sports, whatever activity you're going to do is pretty much guaranteed to be less dangerous than the drive to get there. Live a little when you get the opportunity to do so. You don't have forever.

Maybe I'm saying this from the viewpoint of someone who lives in the hyper-overregulated EU, but still.

I'm not sure about that.

To start with, a huge chunk of road fatalities are due to alcohol. And 'drive sober and not when the bars are closing' cuts the danger from drunk drivers down by, like, 90 something percent. There's a few other basic steps to minimize road danger- drive a car and not a motorbike, etc- but the median driver already does them. You know that thing where the vast majority of drivers claim to be 'above average'? That's statistically true because the average is dragged down by habitual drunk drivers, text and drivers, etc.

But there's also lots of common recreational activities, at least in the US, that are at least as dangerous as driving. Horseback riding, power sports, and waterskiing, for example, are very popular red tribe activities, which are also fairly dangerous.

Seems like nothing burger to me. You can probably get my identity by putting it into a LLM and tracing for linguistic patterns.

This seems to be completely orthogonal to the tech described here? This one is not about doxxing smut authors, it is about doxxing smut readers. Most website UIs do not feature enough navigation elements using natural language to make IDing individuals based on their language use feasible.

But IMO 100% never get in a helicopter

I thought this was a myth? Obviously less safe than passenger airlines but on the order of cars. When I ask ChatGPT that's what it tells me at least

Normalizing to miles or equivalent trips helps reduce the range and can put them around motorcycle risk, but helicopters as a full class remain a good bit more dangerous than cars. To be fair, that’s heavily driven by training flight and Robinson incidents, so fair-weather flight operations under Part 135 are a lot less concerning, but it’s still a risk-taking behavior.

Normalizing to miles or equivalent trips helps reduce the range and can put them around motorcycle risk, but helicopters as a full class remain a good bit more dangerous than cars. To be fair, that’s heavily driven by training flight and Robinson incidents, so fair-weather flight operations under Part 135 are a lot less concerning, but it’s still a risk-taking behavior.

Part 135 helicopters are only about 2x as dangerous as part 135 aeroplanes and 2-3x as dangerous as cars, and it isn't clear if this is driven by things like search-and-rescue work where you know you are taking a risk. My guess is that fair-weather part 135 helicopters are safer than cars.

But IMO 100% never get in a helicopter.

Yes you might die but the helicopter glacier tour is worth risking your life for. Put it on your bucket list.

I would expect the helicopter glacier tour to be hard on the less dangerous end, because if eg unfavorable weather comes up you just tell the tourists it's cancelled today for weather concerns, raincheck.

Definitely awesome. The tour around Denali in a small plane is pretty good too. And skipping the long bus trip from Queenstown to Milford Sound is worth it. But then, I think the epicureans had it right with their motto -- dum vivimus vivamus, or "while we live, let us LIVE"

Maybe. I might be more risks cautious. One-off vacation flights may be fine. Though personally I think I am fine watching drone footage etc.

Cumulative risk vs per-exposure risk. Once, vs every day for an entire career. It's fine.

Could, vs have, vs commoditized, everybody's already doing it, always has, and it's a good thing. This seems to me, I guess naively, like it would be a big jump in proliferation from what I'd assumed was the current state of things.

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