site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   20911 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.

First of all, sounds to me like the greater problem is oligarchy/monopoly/cartel power and the people and its government can just solve that first.

I refuse to believe that if there were two restaurants in a town and they refused to serve blacks, your response will be "oh, the greater problem is that two restaurants form an oligopoly" rather than "it's wrong to make it impossible for black people to go to restaurants".

Second of all, since it's political speech and not something the person can't change about themselves

It's something they can change in the same way that kissing a member of the same sex is something you can change. You can avoid the action, but ultimately the action is based on something you can't change.

well maybe they should think about why they garnered the ban of all the restaurants.

And if they think, and they conclude "they garnered the ban of all the restaurants because there is an oligopoly of a few restaurant owners and the restaurant owners really don't like people with different political opinions"? You're framing it as if they must have done something wrong for the restaurant owners to ban them. The restaurant owners may have banned them because of prejudice, rather than because they did anything wrong.

Third, from my right to free expression and assembly, it's implied that I have freedom of expressive association, which means I can associate with who I want, and not associate with people I don't want, and most importantly, political speech is not a protected class

I repeat, I am asking you about your standards, not about the law. Protected class is a legal category.

And you would never claim that your right to associate with people means that it is okay for your restaurant (or your social media franchise for that matter) to exclude blacks. It is wrong to use your "right to associate" to prevent a large group of people from being able to live normally, especially with commercial transactions.

I am asking you about your standards

look, I think you don't get my truths/axioms and how it currently maps to reality. In this specific discussion, my personal preferences seem to largely align with the current laws and how its currently enforced. It just so happens that the common legal stuff largely agrees with me, that's why I am using the same words the law uses to also say what I want to say.

Of course if there were only two restaurants in town and they both refused to serve blacks, my response would be: this is unacceptable. As I already explained, I would go and find legislators that support my view of how race/color-based discrimination isn't correct. Thankfully I don't have to because of efforts by others in the past.

I think it's fine to discriminate based on political belief, that's why I won't go and find legislators that support that view. In fact, if there is a groundswell of people who try to get legislation that enforce: "You have to respect every political belief", I would go and find legislators that support my opposite view that: "I don't have to entertain every political belief". This would mean stuff like if you try to get "political belief" somehow be a protected class, I would oppose that. If you try to get a constitutional amendment on political belief discrimination, I for sure would do that.

In addition, I notice you haven't tackled my dog owner forum example. Nor have you detailed out any "specific examples of right wing beliefs that get you banned from a large portion of the internet...so that our discussion can be more focused instead of me guessing at what you're meaning" like I asked before.

I am trying to understand and engage and be persuaded by you. Maybe there is a particular corner case, or as you said, evidence, that I haven't considered. But I don't see it.

It's something they can change in the same way that kissing a member of the same sex is something you can change. You can avoid the action, but ultimately the action is based on something you can't change.

"kissing" is genderless action, "kissing a member of the same sex" is now not genderless because there is a gender modifier. Since I've been looking at a lot of math I'm gonna try to model what I think:

  1. There is a set P (persons).
  2. There is a function find_gender(x) such that for a p that is a member of P, find_gender(p) is of the set {m, f} where m means male and f means female in the biological gender/sex kind of way. (find_gender(lollol) = m)
  3. there is a function kissing(p1, p2), with p1 and p2 being member of P, where this means the kisser p1 perform the behavior of kissing on person-being-kissed p2
  4. Let's say there is a restaurant r1 of the set R (private places of "public accommodation")
  5. Let's say there is a function ban(r, behavior) which means restaurant r bans behavior

Now let's examine the following scenarios:

  1. r1 has a ban on kissing. To me that means behavior = kissing(p1,p2) in ban(r1, behavior)
  2. r1 has a ban on kissing men. To me that means behavior = (kissing(p1,p2) AND find_gender(p2) == m) in ban(r1, behavior)
  3. r1 has a ban on same-sex kissing. To me that means behavior = (kissing(p1,p2) AND find_gender(p1) == find_gender(p2)) in ban(r1, behavior)

You notice how the difference between kissing(p1,p2) vs kissing(p1,p2) AND find_gender(p1) == find_gender(p2) is just the AND find_gender(p1) == find_gender(p2)) part?

Well, in my mind, discrimination by gender is being tripped up when the behavior being banned uses find_gender().

And in contrast to you, I don't care about find_political_belief() when private places create bans.

"I don't have to entertain every political belief". This would mean stuff like if you try to get "political belief" somehow be a protected class, I would oppose that. If you try to get a constitutional amendment on political belief discrimination, I for sure would do that.

I don't want people to be not permitted to discriminate on political belief. I want them to not be permitted to discriminate on political belief if, like actual discrimination against blacks, it causes a large scale, pervasive effect that cuts people off from much of modern society. There's a difference between one person discriminating, and multiple social media networks that make up a huge portion of the country and having millions of users discriminating.

If you personally don't want to invite blacks to your party, it's a private party. Fine. If discriminating makes it hard for black people to eat in a restaurant because 90% of the restaurants around won't let them in, that's different.

"kissing" is genderless action, "kissing a member of the same sex" is now not genderless because there is a gender modifier.

I'm not sure what you think the "math" shows here. The question is not whether it's genderless, it's whether it's something you can choose not to do. You can certainly choose not to do it. It's not genderless, but kicking themotte off of Reddit is not politicial-belief-less either.

I don't want people to be not permitted to discriminate on political belief. I want them to not be permitted to discriminate on political belief if, like actual discrimination against blacks, it causes a large scale, pervasive effect that cuts people off from much of modern society. There's a difference between one person discriminating, and multiple social media networks that make up a huge portion of the country and having millions of users discriminating.

If you personally don't want to invite blacks to your party, it's a private party. Fine. If discriminating makes it hard for black people to eat in a restaurant because 90% of the restaurants around won't let them in, that's different.

Please give me a right-wing belief that would lead to 90% of the internet becoming inaccessible to a person holding that belief and cut them off from much of modern society.

I'm not sure what you think the "math" shows here. The question is not whether it's genderless, it's whether it's something you can choose not to do. You can certainly choose not to do it.

The math was me trying to show you how I think of the world. I am increasingly of the belief that I can try to diagram or model or explain whatever which way but we are just not able to communicate with each other.

Howabout this: behavior is a set of stuff, gender is a set of stuff, and gender-based behavior is the intersection of those two sets. The law, and my personal belief, is that gender-based discrimination should not be allowed, that means gender set of stuff should not be used to discriminate, which includes gender-based behavior. "kissing" is a behavior but it's not a gender-based behavior, "kissing men" or "same-sex kissing" is a behavior but it's also a gender-based behavior, and as such can't be the basis of a ban. Does that make sense to you?

Howabout this: there is a circle of behavior-stuff, there is another circle of gender-stuff, those two circles can overlap in an intersection of gender-based-behavior-stuff. "kissing" is another smaller circle that is totally in the behavior-stuff circle, but overlaps a little into the gender-based-behavior-stuff-intersection. that little section has stuff like "same-sex kissing" or "men kissing men" stuff. If a restaurant bans the whole "kissing" circle, that's ok to me because looks like they are banning a behavior, it just so happens that the gender-based stuff was in it. But if they ban only the little overlap part, well, to me that's clearly banning something gender-based and as such is not fine.

It's not genderless, but kicking themotte off of Reddit is not politicial-belief-less either.

well yeah, and i dislike that and would lodge my complaint against that, but I don't think reddit ability to do that should be made illegal. Like I already said, banning people for their political belief is fine for private places of "public accommodations".

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