site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14738 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.

So what happens with the filibuster now? Just as the Republicans appear to have not learned what cost Harris the election, it seems likely the Dems will make similar mistakes this time.

Is killing the filibuster one of them? Is it a mistake?

Personally I feel like it would hasten the end of the union, but plenty of people will argue it will improve deadlock and they may even be right.

Filibuster should have been abolished 50 years ago. It makes sense when you have a multi party system instead of an entrenched 2 party thing like the US. There are other ways to prevent demagoguery without gumming up congress entirely like requireing contentious legislation that was passed narrowly to have to pass a second 50-50 vote a few months down the line which gives both sides the opportunity to reflect (a bit like the house of lords in the UK).

The point isn't to prevent demagoguery, the goal is to prevent winner take all scenarios, which are a bigger-than-usual danger in a historically even Congress. Normally one party dominates so it's not inherently crippling. It forces compromise in that situation.

As for whether it'd be better for the US to swing massively between policies every 4-8 years, I dunno. It can be argued it would relegitimize Congress but there's an equally simple answer on the other side that says if you can't get a filibuster-proof majority to change something for fifty state (and they're supposed to be states) then maybe you should be less ambitious and try to fix things locally first and that the federalization of all politics is the problem.

You always have a governor and state government for a lot of concerns the UK government takes upon itself.

It's difficult for the Senate to check a same-party President nowadays anyway, due to polarization and direct election. Lowering the threshold of votes makes it even less likely.

The point isn't to prevent demagoguery, the goal is to prevent winner take all scenarios, which are a bigger-than-usual danger in a historically even Congress. Normally one party dominates so it's not inherently crippling. It forces compromise in that situation.

The problem is that the power Congress gives up by being dysfunctional doesn't disappear - in practice it ends up being fought over by the President and the courts. Turning the Presidency into the elective monarchy that Hamilton wanted and the other framers definitely didn't creates an even bigger winner-takes-all effect.

Yes. Which is why it'd have to be paired with some sort of reduction of federal power. But that seems as impossible to get through as anything else.

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