site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6109 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.

Can someone give me an analysis on who Abdul El-Sayed actually is as a person? He gave a weird interview where he said trans is a made up issue because your daughter has an I-Phone in her pocket so she will see dicks all the time anyway.

The first impression is he’s some sort of Muslim Brotherhood type. My second impression is pegging him as similar to brown friends I know whose parents do something science (medicine/engineering), are fairly wealthy, follow zero Muslim codes, hate white girls but probably slept with a few dozen in their twenties. All of these types are/can be fully assimilated into America. Half seem like they really do assimilate. The other half to me seem like they have a chip remaining on their shoulder that their people couldn’t build America.

My guess is he’s that type that still has a big chip on his shoulder to fully white people. So thinking things like sexualizing normies is perfectly fine for him in the same way a westerner might go to Thailand for a holiday and not view Thai’s as his people.

I'm sympathetic to Jonah Goldberg's argument in this podcast, that is, that El-Sayed wants the Democrats to be a straightforward anti-Israel party.

I don't think El-Sayed supports the full Muslim Brotherhood agenda. The social democrat positions that he holds are honest. He is not, I think, secretly an MB supporter in the sense of everything they stand for. But he is, I think, basically a middle-class western Muslim who attributes a disproportionate level of importance of Israel, and it has become organising for his thoughts in a way that it is not for other people.

To be honest I don’t think you can be Muslim and a Democrat in the same way that you can’t be Catholic and a Democrat. You can be a skinsuit globally homogenous Democrat who by virtue of ancestry are Muslim but follow Muslim beliefs. An ethnic Muslim but not a religious Muslim.

Trans is one example where a real Muslim’s response could be nothing less than trans mental people have a mental illness and should be locked up. And there really is no way to sugar coat that while maintaining spiritual connection to god.

I can’t see “anti-Israel” being a core belief that drives all of your beliefs but a symptom of a broader world view. For a typical progressive I think their mental model flows primarily thru an “oppressor-oppressed” framework which makes a progressive good person because they fight for the weak. Israel therefore is the bad side of this framework because they are rich.

The best mental model I can come up with Sayed is to model him on wealthy brown friends who are non-religious but tend dislike Israel for a vague tribal connection feeling similar to how an American with an Irish name supports Ireland. Basically the same reason I hate a few sports teams.

Trans is one example where a real Muslim’s response could be nothing less than trans mental people have a mental illness and should be locked up.

Iran has allowed it since the 1980s. Even while homosexuality is still punished severely, including even executions. So I'm not sure this is necessarily true.

Iran uses medical transition as a loophole for any gay imams to be able to bang dudes without violating sharia by forcing other gay men to transition to avoid being stoned, hanged or defenestrated. It is progressive only via horseshoe theory.

I feel like this is one of those too good to check things that comes up every once in a while. It's about the 10th time I've heard it.

So here's my question. Is this just like 3 dudes who transitioned socially in the 1980s, or is this a real thing with medical transition clinics, drag shows at libraries, ideological support, the whole nine yards?

If I had to wager, I'd guess it's the former and that by any reasonable western standard, Iran would be considered extremely anti-trans.

Drag shows at libraries, no. I'd imagine Western rainbow-flag-ism is about as banned as you'd think it'd be.

But they do have medical transition clinics which see some use. The government will recognize the transition and even change your name and sex on your birth certificate. The public isn't too much in favour of it, and these people obviously do see discrimination, but Khomeini himself issued not one but two fatwas explicitly endorsing it.

It's also a way for homosexuals to get out of the punishment for being homosexual (I'm explicitly not saying "gay" here as I am referring to the sexual orientation and not to the whole culture that's been built around it in the West). They'll make you have surgery before they'll recognize it though, so it's your dick or your life, basically.

Minus that last part it's not too far off from how it used to be in Western countries before the 2010s. Gender dysphoria has been a thing for a while, so has transition, it just used to be rare and not politicised.

Iran actually has a very high rate of trans-ID. Often at gunpoint, they force homosexuals to transition.

The #yeschad way to be pro trans rights.

This is extremely easy to look up; Iran subscribes to some transgender ideology, but it doesn’t manifest in the same way at all because they're very socially illiberal instead of very socially liberal. It's a fluke but not in the sense that it involves very few people or in the sense that it isn’t very well-established policy.

I looked it up. Exact numbers are impossible to find, but they do have medical transitioning. Best/most recent data that ChatGPT could find was this:

839 qualifying medical records were examined in a nationwide study covering referrals during March 2012–March 2017. That was a diagnosis/referral count, not a count of completed transitions.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02250-y

Also this:

1,366 people applied for surgical transition permits during 2006–2010. These were applications; the records don’t establish how many underwent surgery

https://6rang.org/english/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Diagnosing-Identities-Paralyzing-Bodies.pdf

How many actually get surgery? Presumably it's non zero but it could be anywhere from single digits to about 200 per year. I'd treat any reporting on this as highly suspicious by default as its something that certain people want to be true so badly they will crucify the truth to make it that way. It's not a neutral issue where academic and media reporting can be trusted uncritically.

Nevertheless, it does appear to be happening. Very odd.

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