site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   19978 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean with abortion we have lost on it on most ballot measures. Minus a few states. I think there is some truth to what he is saying.

I mean with abortion we have lost on it on most ballot measures. Minus a few states. I think there is some truth to what he is saying.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. I'm simply saying that in 1973, progressives had a huge win on abortion -- abortion was recognized as a right everywhere in the United States. After years of tireless effort and a good deal of luck, that right was recently rolled back, at least to some extent. This seems to go against the idea that the Left's victories are permanent.

They’re permanent as far as public opinion and culture goes. Just legal Overturning roe might be a short term gain, but if states restablish the right state by state via ballot. Your back to square one to a degree. I can’t see the public getting more conservative on any real issues.

I can’t see the public getting more conservative on any real issues.

Being pro-abortion up to the first 18 years for any reason by the mother is the conservative position. Anti-abortion is a reformer position (which is how you get 'bitter clinger' Christians in bed with modern men who find this unilateral privilege excessive for other reasons, but the former group is still all-in on other female privilege).

It makes more sense once you understand that the traditionalists aren't driving conservatism/the definition of privilege-based governance any more. The progressives are doing that now- that switched over about 2010, it was a whole thing.

The idea that traditional societies saw anything particularly special about the age of eighteen is farcical.

About as farcical as the notion that Christianity is a conservative position in 2026. Then again, I don't live in Texas.

I suggest conservatism is best defined like a late-'00s 'liberal' does (though they're just the latest to do that), which is "the socially accepted way to exercise one's genetic predisposition to be an obnoxious scold".

The early '10s were when the socially-accepted banner under which "being an obnoxious scold" was rewarded switched from the Christian flag to the Feminist flag (the one that was designed by them- the Pride flag, with chevron deference). Since actual youth tend not to be pundits, this isn't a paradigm most voters are operating in yet (which is why reform parties still call themselves "conservatives" and why conservative parties still call themselves "liberals"- it confuses the young, but not the Boomer, and the name is for the Boomer).

So right now, Christianity is very much not a conservative position; they honestly seem to be more evenly split, judging by the number of Progress flags associated with the more world-focused denominations. At least they've figured out the winning strategy is a reform one (simply create an institution whose government-provided resources disincentivizes abortion, then work at that), where waving angry flags from bridges tends to be a losing strategy simply because they're not where privilege lives any more (and if you read "abortion rights" as a specific instance of the general "concerned about a reduction in female privilege", polls and the gender divide start to make a lot more sense).

I agree with your description on the object-level, but your labeling sucks. At the point at which you are calling feminism "conservativism" you are not communicating clearly.

At the point at which you are calling feminism ["the socially accepted way to exercise one's genetic predisposition to be an obnoxious scold"]

which is why reform parties still call themselves "conservatives" and why conservative parties still call themselves "liberals"- it confuses the young, but not the Boomer, and the name is for the Boomer

What part of the statement is confusing to you? Was it the part where I clearly explained how I defined "conservatism"? Was it the part where I said you'd have a hard time understanding that what "conservatism" is has moved on?

Or perhaps I am suffering from dementia where context I'm taking into account when I write a reply doesn't actually exist? Because I think the original statement made, which is

The most important thing lesson reified by recent political events is that while conservatives can win by democratic means, they cannot rule by them.

is 100% compatible, and actually quite a bit clearer, when you use this definition of "conservative" rather than the conservative traditional one. If you want to be a reformer, you actually have to demand reform, not just assume the enemy somehow knows what you want (maybe they do, but just like any good obnoxious scold/conservative, they are those with the power of "we be here when you get here, and we be here when you gone", where the classic "pretending to be retarded" is a means to that end).

The faster you get over wanting it to be one way, and realizing that it is the other way, the sooner you can get what you want. But this is just repeating "right is the new left" in a slightly different way 10 years after the fact, and then noticing that has implications for the strategies those who believe themselves in those new positions should act.

You can't correctly reason by induction if your initial position was invalid to start with.

but if states restablish the right state by state via ballot

If they do this, this reflects the will of the people.

Agreed

I think abortion is more subtle an issue than many commentators give it credit for. There are die-hard partisans on both extremes, but my understanding of polling data is that most voters were uncomfortable with the trimester timelines of Roe (28 weeks, IIRC), and would generally prefer "legal until 12-16 weeks for any reason, and for serious health reasons after", which largely matches the range of laws in other Western nations. I will admit to somewhat begrudgingly matching this description.

The cases since Roe mostly chipped away at what were rather maximal abortion rights in the US. But overturning it enacted a bunch of "if the courts ever let us, abortion is banned" laws on the books in red states from a time when they were largely performative. As such, there are a bunch of red states with abortion laws far to the right of the median voter: it's not surprising to see some normalization there. Note that the Senate had the votes to force a national law on the issue after Dobbs, but there wasn't a consensus on where to put the line.

I recall reading a good argument a few years back that Roe largely kept the normal democratic process from establishing a stable consensus like happened elsewhere, and I think there is some wisdom in that.

They’re permanent as far as public opinion and culture goes.

I disagree with this as well. Certainly there are some parts of the United States where the public opinion and culture is very much opposed to abortion. Given the strong growth rates of very religious populations, I would expect this opposition to grow.

What does 'permanent' as far as public opinion and culture goes' even mean, anyway?

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has barely made it 20 years and is mostly a punch line. The New Deal coalition more or less existed for a mere 50 before it was blown up by the neoliberals, who saw their globalization project start to reverse in about 30.

A generation may be a lifetime, but a lifetime is far from permanent.

What does 'permanent' as far as public opinion and culture goes' even mean, anyway?

I'm not sure, but here's a possible way of thinking about it. A couple hundred years ago, the issue of slavery in the United States was a culture war issue. (Actually it was later a real war issue.) Anyway, I think it's fair to say that the abolitionists won permanently. In the sense that they won, they got their way, and their opposition has dwindled away into essentially nothing.

Will there be slavery again in the United States? Seems unlikely, but if it does happen, it's not going to be because pro-slavery institutions worked for hundreds of years and finally got their way. Rather, it will be because new constituencies emerged.

Same thing with women's suffrage. There used to be an organization called the New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. It's long gone. Will women eventually lose the right to vote? I think it's unlikely, but again, if it does happen, it won't be because the NYSAOWS finally succeeded.

I would say that these situations could reasonably be called "permanent victory"

That's true, permanent victory is possible. But Roe V. Wade is one of about three issues where this is the furthest from happening to the right (along with gun rights and strict interpretation of the 1A). The pro-life movement successfully got one of the sacred Quasi-Constitutional SCOTUS landmarks overturned!

The fact so many states had dormant abortion bans on the book which quickly got overturned was merely a legal lag behind the existing democratic will of the country. A lot of states had inactive bans because the pro-abortion elements there assumed Roe V Wade would last forever or at least for a while longer. When it didn't they sprang into action and won. But the democratic will that some states have to keep abortion banned does still exist, see Idaho which just rejected repealing its one. Those states are now in a better position where they can act completely on their pro-life position, whereas before they were totally banned from actually following their political beliefs.

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