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.
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.
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!
User ID: 1888
A few things about this -
1.) As other people have noted, the economy is really good for entry-level work, the type that competes with people who end up signing up for the Army via a recruiter. The reality is, post-World War II, and especially post-Vietnam, the military is a jobs program, both in the form of the disparate congressional districts everything is built and being a fairly decent choice for a young person without many prospects in the many less than favorable part of the US.
2.) I'm old enough to remember when the macho Russian military with their un-woke ways were going to roll over anybody put in front of them, especially the SJW military that'd been feminized, etc., etc., In reality, what happened was those macho Russian soldiers got nailed with missiles by Ukranian's who were given targeting information by some trans furries working at an army base in Nevada.
3.) To follow up on that, one positive of the US military, compared to many militaries around the world, including even some friendly to us, is that isn't not haven of a specific ethnic group, geographic region, or familial background. It's a fairly meritocratic institution that will do what it's told, as long as it doesn't break the Constitution. Want to invade Iraq, and wreck Baghdad? Great. Want to be more friendly to women, LGBT, and other minority soldiers because we need them to fulfill specific roles in a new generation of warfare? Sure. So on and so forth.
It's a fantastic thing the military doesn't have to kneel to a bunch of Southerners upset it's not 1985 (and if I was being less charitable, 1925) anymore, and an army base doesn't look like a John Wayne film anymore. Because it means leadership can be found among the wide swath of America, as opposed to just the parts that certain demographics approve of.
4.) Even though I disagree, I have some sympathy for normal people who lost their jobs because of COVID. When it comes to the military, sorry, Charlie. You signed away that whole freedom thing. If they can send you to die in the middle of Ukraine possibly, they can make you get the jab.
5.) I'm perfectly happy to let the Right give away the military, along with football, and a ton of other things bit of the reactionary online right (including folks like Blake Masters) have soured on in the past few years.
6.) Finally, we're still the world's hyperpower, no matter what people upset with some social policy may claim online. If you look into any actual wargames we've lost, you quickly find we put so many limits on our own equipment, just to make things interesting. Yes, random think tankers, Congressman, and such, all whom either work closely with military contractors or whom have jobs in their district, will talk about China as some massive threat militarily, along with ideologues who dislike current American society.
The reality is, the way war is going for the US military, and I actually make the distinction here, is we actually need more people who are open and OK with lots of different types of people, as long as they can "shoot straight," to use a quote from Barry Goldwater, as opposed to a bunch of people with nostalgic ideas about the past of the military. I'm sure there were military families who talked about not sending the next generation, whenever things became a little more open.
But, hey like I said, if the Right also wants to totally hand the military over to us, we'll take it.
I mean, there are plenty of people who think we'd would've been better off if we turned the ancestor of the Boebert's around at Ellis Island.
It hasn't panned out for Western Europe, because they're a bunch of weirdos who think being French or German is determined by whether your ancestors were peasants dying for some Lord who wasn't even from that area 1,000 years ago. Throw in bad housing policy, and you have a situation where even fairly well-meaning multi-generation Turks in Germany don't feel German, let alone other Muslims with more touchy backgrounds with the West.
OTOH, if you come to America, have some kids, start a business, learn English (even if it's broken), and don't wall yourself in some ethnic enclave after your first or second generation, even many Trump voters will be happy to have you as neighbors. It is funny how so many people who despise birthright citizenship don't realize the moderating influence it has.
Yes, yes, yes, I know 3rd or 4th generation college educated immigrants are all SJW's who complain about America all the time. Well...what's more American than that?
Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana also shot down abortion bans via referendum. The median voter may not be in favor of unlimited abortion, but they have zero trust the GOP will only actually pass moderate abortion restrictions. It's the reverse of the gun issue - the median voter actually is uncomfortable with unalloyed access to guns, but doesn't trust the Democrat's on the issue.
Shows bad the pre-Sexual Revolution society was to many people they'd put up with the weirdos.
But, do you think Led Zeppelin, Rick Springfield, and the dozens of other popular mainstream artists, actors, and such who engaged in what were the time, consensual relationships with teenage girls should have their records banned, and so forth, like you want to do with these intellectuals? Like, Robert Plant being a bit of scumbag doesn't make him a worse singer and many of these intellectuals have good arguments despite their preference for young teenage girls.
Why do school libraries need explicit sexual material?
Why do school libraries need explicit sexual material?
There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of books in every single school library with graphic descriptions of physical violence, blood, gore, and destruction. Yet, somehow, reading about two gay people having sex is more explicit? As long as kids can check out a book and read about the aftermath of World War II in Europe, the world won't end if they get some masturbation instructions as well.
The 70's in the immediate post-Sexual Revolution era was also...just weird. Like yeah, you can name all the weirdo French intellectuals you want, but also, some of the biggest musicians in the world were dating 14-year-olds, and the work just kind of shrugged. Brooke Shields was being sexualized in a way that doesn't really happen in the same way anymore.
Like, you could've jailed every single French intellectual you mentioned and Led Zeppelin was still going to be sleeping w/15-year-old groupies, with no pushback from wider society.
What was really happening was a big shift in the Overton Window thanks to the pill and breaking of traditional sexual mores, and some ideas went out over the skis but eventually got brought back. It's only weirdo online right-wingers like ole' RH defending women teachers who sleep with their students, and the age of consent is getting raised basically worldwide, to line up with eighteen in most places.
Yeah, any poll without a none of the above/no opinion option I throw out as junk, even if it agrees w/ my views.
I'm fine w/ abortion being a "state issue," if by state issue, you mean one determined by referendums on various abortion laws.
But, red state governments don't like that very much, because it turns out even the most right-wing states don't agree with the extremists in charge of state governments on abortion law.
So, there was some talk in this thread (or the previous one) about why the Israel/Palestine issue is such a big one in progressive circles, as opposed to country x, y, or z. Well, there were some decent historical and cultural explanations, I think one reason that really didn't get brought up is because there's actual disagreement within the wider left-leaning coalition is why there's more fire, on both sides.
So, as an actual progressive Democratic partisan, let me explain a bit.
Putting aside actual tankies or the 11 Lieberman Democrats left, if you put the median Bernie & the median Biden primary voter in 2020, and had them talk foreign policy, there would be wide agreement - Iraq was a mistake, we were in Afghanistan too long, Russia is bad and Ukraine needs our defense, but American foreign policy has been too hawkish in general, and so on. So, there's no spice, outside of the occasional Twitter dunk of somebody who had a bad take on Iraq in 2004, but even that's kind of hackish and old news to most Democratic voters at this point.
But, there would be actual disagreement on Israel & Palestine, especially if both sides were intelligent median voters because it's an actual complicated issue. At the moment, polling shows the median Democratic voter view is along the lines of, "the Israeli government are a-holes, Hamas is terrible, and the hostages need to be released, but Jesus, the IDF seems to be going overboard on this, and oh yeah, the surrounding governments are full of instigators."
Now, the more progressive voter would be more harsh on the Israeli government, more friendly to the Palestinian population, and so on, but the polling that showed 50/50 support for Israel vs Hamas among younger voters, was likely bad polling. The reason why Democratic views used to be more pro-Israel, is because the Israeli population used to reflect a more liberal view of the conflict, and now it really doesn't, plus wider changes in the makeup of the Democratic coalition.
Finally, the "but Palestinians have bad views on x, why do you support them," is a bad argument, because as progressives, we believe even terrible have the right to vote, and self-government. Only letting people with the right views (or the right amount of land ownership) is the reactionary view. Now, if said Palestinian government passes anti-LGBT laws or whatever, then we'll treat them like we do other countries with no leverage on us - sanctions and such until they embrace the loving arms of deviancy, or whatever.
In the long run, if this is all old news by Election Day 2024, it'll likely be forgotten, and more importantly, the vast majority of even young SJW left-wing Democratic voters are self-centered voters, like 95% of all voters, and will be reminded that Trump wants to put more reactionaries on the court, cut taxes for rich people, limit trans right, etc, make student loan payments higher, et al, and vote accordingly. I'd make a $1 bet w/ anybody here, that as long as the Israeli situation is basically back to some form of status quo, there will be no real movement of the youth vote, or a lack of turnout, beyond the lack of turnout there always is.
After all, Gretchen Whitmer actually lost ground among Muslim voters in 2022 in her re-election campaign (probably due to LGBT issues), but won by wider margin. Which is the only real trouble spot for the Biden team in 2024, since they literally do not care if some college-educated 2nd gen Muslim immigrant in Los Angeles doesn't vote.
Standard Disclaimer: Yes, lots of people are dumb, and will have simple reasons, and weird views.
Mark Levin has a radio show that lots and lots of people still listen to (1.5 million daily was the most correct-seeming number from a quick Google, but it could be an over or underestimate), especially the type of right-leaning person who still buys books (old people), while RH mostly gets into arguments on Twitter, has a successful Substack, but really has little reach in normie land.
I think sometimes people forget that because of things like Substack, Patreon, etc., somebody can have a very healthy living, while not having much reach. Like, I don't knoe his Substack numbers, but he could have a healthy six-figure income, and have an audience of basically nothing, politically.
Not a nuke, but an overwhelming NATO-backed (and probably OK'd on the down low by China) attack on basically of Russia's military capabilities? Probably.
Sure, but it's a nice bonus we're wearing down an enemy, it's helpful to our larger geopolitical goals, and it's by actual standards, pretty cheap since most of our "spending" is writing off 1980's and 1990's military equipment.
OK, guess I have to speak up as probably the only actual social democratic partisan Democrat here -
The reason Joe Biden is running for reelection is because he's the incumbent President and wants to run for reelection, and primary challenges agains incumbent President's go badly, and most importantly, nobody would beat him. Like, contrary to popular opinion, there is no secret Deep State Cabal of Obama, Hillary, and whomever running the country. No, it's the codgy old guy, the people who have been around him for years, and a bunch of former Warrne staffers. Secondly, even if he did step down, Kamala's the nominee because she's the VP, still has good approvals among Democrat's, and so on.
Now, we're probably going to disagree on the fundamentals on who's smart or not, but going to the bench - the thing people miss is much of the current Democratic bench is in the states - Whitmer in Michigan in the same state Biden barely won, wins by ten, and also turns the Michigan legislature entirely blue for the first time in decades, Shapiro in PA wins by a landslide, Pritzer in Illinois's a little more controversial but you beat a bad billionaire with a good class traitorous billionaire, there's Governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina who has won two terms in a light-red state, while running as a standard issue liberal, Andy Beshear in Kentucky is a pro-choice and pro-LGBT Governor of that state about to win reelection, Tim Walz has been a solid governor of Minnesota, and for more well-known folks, there's Newsom in Cali, and for the more moderates/neoliberals, Polis in CO. In the Senate, even then, there's Raphael Warnock, a pretty down-the-line liberal Senator who won in Georgia.
Like, on pure electoral talent, 2022 shows the Democrat's have plenty of it, simply looking back at the historical record of midterms.
I also, frankly, think people have gone so over the board underestimating Kamala, that they'd assume she'd lose in some 40-state landslide. As a social democrat, she wouldn't be my preferred candidate in 2028 (Whitmer or Warnock for me), but at worst, Kamala loses the EC 312-226, and even then, still only narrowly loses the popular vote, and that's if the GOP doesn't nominate somebody Trump-adjacent or somebody with no charisma like DeSantis. So yeah, a boring ticket like I don't know Brian Kemp/Kim Reynolds probably wins that election that way, but Tucker/Vivek, or something like that - Kamala can totally win because people will choose cringe they're embarrassed guy by the weirdos, and as seen by some of the right's reaction to the Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce thing, they're entirely too much the weirdos.
Finally, probably most controversially, Fetterman. He outran Biden in Pennsylvania and has the look much closer to the median American than anybody else. Hell, polling showed the stroke made voters more sympathetic to him, as the elite media was telling him to withdraw, savaging his debate performance, and so on.
I'm not somebody who says the GOP can't win in 2024 or 2028, but this weird idea, because Biden's the nominee there is no bench is simply false, and I'd make the opposite argument for the GOP. Whose somebody that can win a primary with a Trumpian base, that can actually win a national election?
Another failed attempt by largely reactionaries and people close to reactionaries in their 954th attempt to be the cool countercultural group fighting The Man, but then will be surprised again when the only people using the wording are online weirdos.
The difference is, in the US, for a long time, you didn't need your ID in most places, and calls for ID's only came when a certain group of people began voting in far higher numbers.
Now, personally, I'd be fine w/ voter ID, as long as it was a national ID, given out for free, sent out as an update to your SS card.
It's basically that on the Congressional list, and as I said above, really bad timing w/ Mitch, Biden, Pelosi, and Trump all in power. But, Pelosi has stepped down, Biden will be done after 2024 or his next term, and Mitch will likely be gone at worst at his next election. After that, there aren't a ton of new 70 year olds vying for power - Bernie & Warren aren't running again, and in both parties, there are 40-60 year old politicians ready to run.
I think in a century, it'll be noted this was a weird genorcratic period - maybe something about wanting older leadership after the chaos of the Recession w/ Obama at the helm will be some college students doctorate or something.
Eh, I'm the weirdo who thinks this is just a particularly bad moment with Mitch, Biden, and Trump in leadership positions and it'll soon pass.
Look at both parties - on the Democratic side, whether you like them or not, they're Newsom, Harris, Shapiro, Whitmer, Walz, etc. all of whom are normal political ages, and Pelosi just stepped down.
For the GOP, there's DeSantis, Reynolds, Hawley, Cruz, Kemp, etc. who again, are all in normal political leader ages, and McCarthy and most of McConnell's likely successors.
Now, the actual problem is that in 2028, if he's still living, the 80-something Trump will still likely be the choice of at least 30-40% of the primary voting base.
I mean, yes, and if that girl is charmed by you at all, she'll have to pretend to care about whatever niche interest you're into. Welcome to normal human relationships.
If you want to be an introvert, the price is, yes, it'll be harder for you to build those initial relationships.
Honestly, a lot of complaints from people in general, but mostly men, when it comes to the dating scene seem to basically be a lot of the time, "I can't act exactly the way I want too, and get exactly what I want." No, but 90% of people in general can't, at least for the person they want.
This is a bit of a ramble, but bare with me.
I honestly think what Tinder mostly did was give men definitive no's when they could've maybe dreamed in a perfect world, they could convince a woman they're the right match.
I'll put it this way - back in 1995, your random guy working a decent mid-level job at Microsoft in Seattle wasn't hooking up with the cute rock chicks hanging out in still super cheap 'n' grungy Capitol Hill, but the fantasy could still exist. Now, that same guy knows for sure it's a 'no.' Now, I do think one thing that maybe should be pushed slightly more is unless the other person has a photographic memory, you have a really terrible profile they'd remember, or you have terrible luck, it's probably fine to try to hit on somebody that swiped left on you six months ago if you come across them. Now, the issue there is you shouldn't probably remember the person you didn't match with six months ago, and that's a sign of deeper issues.
There's no actual good evidence of greater hypergamy among women of this actual hoovering up of all the women by Chad's that people on Twitter and the Internet claim is happening. The reality is, despite what some people on this very site claim is happening, you random average-looking office worker in suburban Des Moines is not swiping no on everybody who doesn't make six figures, isn't six feet, or at least "six inches." Now, maybe this is happening in very specific situations that people online are overrepresented in - ie. San Francisco - but most things people complain about Tinder, have been complained about dating since it became something more than what your parents decided you were going to do.
Now, you can maybe make some arguments about the drop of in-person meeting and such, but I do honestly think the results of Tinder have been overstated because two groups of people that Tinder causes issues in totally separate ways - women who get tons of matches on Tinder and dudes who get zero matches on Tinder, both have outsized voices in their own bubbles. I also firmly believe that there are a lot of dead profiles on Tinder or profiles that (mostly) women leave active to be another form of social media that gives them positive feedback in the form of likes. Now, that might be bad, but that's not a fault of women, since men would largely do the same thing if they could.
Tinder, porn, and general changes in dating are thing people are an '8' on a 1-10 scale and will lead to massive scales of societal destruction, but in reality, they're probably a '3' or '4' and nobody actually talks up the positives. Like, knowing say, whether your partner would be OK w/ an abortion or has drastically different views on their future is actually something that's probably stopped bad marriages, divorces, and terrible custody cases. That's not even getting into the fact the actual big society wide changes aren't so-much US going from people getting married at 24 and having 2.3 kids to getting married at 34 and having 1.8 kids, it's that even places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most of Africa are having plummeting birthrate drops.
My view is the data was always kind of meh, COVID really messed with it, and maybe this new data is OK, but maybe it's just as bad, but it shouldn't have been used or be used as proof there's an incel crisis or Tinder had destroyed gender relations or whatever.
Yeah, those people were dumb. There was no great movement toward the Right of the youth during this time, as you can see by looking at actual voting results.
Even recently, there is a big story about the rightward movement among teen boys, and if you actually look into the numbers, it's barely outside of the margin of error and more importantly, no evidence of long-term change. Plus, it shows, as you'd expect, that most teens don't have an ideology at all. But even back then, the "alt-right pipeline" was a relatively minor part of Youtube, and yes, people freaked out about it incorrectly. Gamergate didn't cause Trump to win - higher turnout among low-salience middle-aged voters in the Midwest gave Trump the win.
I get it - just like my more left-wing friends think if they can just make the right arguments, everybody will be a socialist, you guys think it'd be a generation of edgy right-wingers if not for Youtube "controlling access to information."
But, most people are normies who don't want to be mean to people they get to know. Whether it's the nice Trump-voting waitress at their local Applebee's or the trans kid across the street.
Eh, it's more a combo that "blue tribers" are more willing to not have financially successful lives to get what they want. Like, there are a ton of creative people who won't even get all that rich, but will effect far more lives than the median franchise restaurant owner who got an MBA.
As I've said before, for all the blame on teachers or professors, the actual reason why the median 17-year old in rural Nebraska is likely far more liberal than they were in 1995 is they have access to the Internet and can watch videos of non-white people, LGBT people, and even people from other countries have normal lives, and be into normal things.
Like, some trans beauty blogger who has a few million subscribers on YT or whatever probably moves the needle on those kind of issues more than any kind of official lesson plan Red Tribers can try to ban via taking over school boards.
The irony is a big thing that could end the dysfunction is to end the filibuster, and actually pass legislation.
Now yes, this would lead to some things this forum would not like passed. Also, it wouldn't lead to say the Civil Rights Act getting overturned, because it turns out a Senator who can get elected in say, Georgia or Arizona probably doesn't want to actually do that, or fill in whatever other right-wing promise numerous swing state Senator's have made, but would never actually vote for, because they like their job.
Ironically, the filibuster currently gives the Right an overstated case of their actual political strength, because if you're a Republican Senator in a swing state, you can agree to all sorts of things in a primary, knowing voters don't really care until you actually vote for something/it gets put into law (ie. the Dobbs effect), and they know you need 60 votes to pass anything not directly related to spending.
I say this thing to my left-wing friends as well, as a dirty left-wing social democrat SJW - your issue isn't the system. Your issue is that nobody actually agrees with you because life in America is actually pretty damn good for the vast majority of people, and well yeah, they may complain about [random right-friendly or left-friendly issue], but they're not going to vote for somebody who wants to overturn the whole damn thing. Now, I know, "but a small minority of woke people control society."
Not really true, but also, most people may think going to a DEI training (even though, again, your company having a DEI training is kind of a tell on your educated background) may be a bit over the top, but they also don't think the world is ending as a result of a couple hour training they go too once or twice a year. So, when you act like it is, most normies go, "you're a weirdo, and if the choice is you or the nice lady in charge of DEI training, I'll go with her."
The actual reality is the Sex Recession was either something made up out of bad data, a temporary drop mostly due to women being more worried about COVID than men, especially among single people under 30, or was left-leaning women being more wary of "non-political men" and those men learning how to better sell themselves.
Why do I say this? Because according to the same data people used to write one zillion Hot Takes about how online dating has destroyed young men's ability to get laid, everything is fine - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyOlWt9aUAAYZsd?format=png&name=small
We're back to the only guys not getting laid actually being probably the guys who were never getting laid. Or maybe the incels aged out, and Gen Z, born into dating apps, know how to deal with them better as they enter adulthood.