site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33621 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The mods had a little discussion about this. Your post isn't against the rules on content - "I don't want more Indians here" is an allowable opinion - but it is veering close to consensus building. (You cannot speak for how most people on the Motte feel, let alone presume to speak for the entire country.) And we have noticed that your two posts so far seem to be harping on your dislike of Indians. I'm pretty certain this is an alt you are using to grind this particular axe.

Contribute something other than how much you don't like Indians if you want to keep posting with this account.

Contribute something other than how much you don't like Indians

That is not how this post came across to me, and it saddens me that this appears to be the Official mod interpretation of that post.

Alas, we often cause sadness.

Fair enough.

Read 'sadness' as shorthand for 'a small but decidedly nonzero tick of update towards having to weight views on this site based on presumed self-censorship, inexpressibility of some views, and resulting skewed representation, when this is one of shockingly few sites left on the public internet that appeared to have not fully gone down that path.'

We've been hearing it since reddit days. For how constantly we're being told we're making some views inexpressible, it's amazing how often those views continue to be expressed.

Attempting to ban a view preferentially results in banning actual discussion of that view.

If a view is common you'll still get one-offs of people who either do not realize the view is banned, or don't care, and who drop an unbacked opinion.

This has the obvious feedback effect.

Attempting to ban a view

This hasn't happened.

That may not have been your intent, certainly.

Can you tell me what views you think have been banned?

More comments

To be fair, y'all did ban a certain view for like a month (though I think this was before your time as a mod).

Yes, that was long before I was a mod. Even then, it was a temporary ban because the HBD threads had become exhausting. I personally think it was a mistake, but if one single topic is taking all the air out of the room it's tempting to be fed up with it.

For the record, despite being a mod myself, I had no part in this discussion. I was too busy replying to people to even notice while that was underway, in case anyone thinks that negativity expressed towards moderators is treated differently.

I've been chided by you yet wholeheartedly defend your regime as mod, FTR. Well done. Amadan too, begrudgingly. And more than I can name.

Even @cjet79 is pretty cool.

Thank you. It can occasionally be thankless work, I don't enjoy having to rap people on the knuckles, so if someone who underwent that still considers me a decent mod, I'm glad.

We try our best!

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