site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   27385 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is just might makes right, which as I said:

On the one hand, the might-makes-right people say that the state is self-justifying. It exists, it has might, therefore obey it, end of discussion. This is unsatisfying in that it essentially dodges the topic of discussion. As such it is not really a valid answer to the question of legitimacy; rather it implicitly denies that there is any question to be had at all. Might makes right might be a good starting point for a science of state, which investigates how, in human history, states have emerged and become mighty, but it is inappropriate for the normative question that is the question of legitimacy (what type of state should there be?).

This is just might makes right

ChadYes.jpg/alwayshasbeenastronauts.png

Ok so you support the Holocaust as a ChadYes moment?

Not really. Industrial extermination of your own citizens is historically anomalous compared to conquest. Also, might did make right, because they lost to the Allies.

I'm not getting it here. The state, legitimate according to you, decreed they are not citizens, which is of course the right of whoever happens to have might, according to you. Citizenship is given by the state, likewise it is taken away, it is not really relevant when might makes right. And, though the Reich lost its might, it seems to have had more to do with its oil reserves and food supply and less to do with putting the Jews in camps. So I'm not following your reasoning here, during the Holocaust, the Reich had might, so you must admit, according to your theory, that it had right.

Look, there's always one real pope, the other one was the anti-pope all along, you can tell by how one of them won and the other didn't.

I know that saying "Sucks to suck, dude" when asked for justice comes off as flippant and unfair, because it often is.

The way to apply might-makes-right/sucks-to-suck arguments that's fair is when the person demanding justice had previously been using might-makes-right. You don't get to start a war with the intention of winning it through force, then, when defeated by force, whine about how force is illegitimate, something-something-international-law, something-something colonialism.

Arabs only discovered international law, war crimes, indigenous rights, and exploiting the emotional incontinence of westerners after losing.

Look, there's always one real pope, the other one was the anti-pope all along, you can tell by how one of them won and the other didn't.

No because might makes right is false. One theology is clearer truer than the other.

I know that saying "Sucks to suck, dude" when asked for justice comes off as flippant and unfair, because it often is.

I think it's relatively uncharitable to talk to me like this. Of course I have thought extensively about how the world is unfair. What do you think the post is even about? It's not that I have an ego problem with you talking down to me, but that it's boring, and I am here for good discussions. So it is just disappointing to have to point out to people that I am in fact not Patrick Star. It wastes time that I wish were amazing discussion instead.

One theology is clearer truer than the other.

Right, and you can tell which one is true-er because the pope said it. The pope is the pope because he defeated the anti-pope.

Okay, but you can at least inhabit a perspective where one of them is more correct than the other, right? Yes, the interpretation of the winner tends to win out in practice because the winner can apply power to make it so, but that doesn't actually make him correct any more than the Chinese emperor can turn a deer into a horse.

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