site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   34892 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 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.

Do American on The Motte feel that the country is generally in favour of breaking from its old European alliances? I am not sure I have got that sense when visiting but I've visited only fairly D-leaning areas in recent years.

From the British/European point of view, one has the sense from current reporting that a significant rebalancing is happening, one that I would characterise as going beyond wanting to reduce American spending on e.g. Ukraine, and towards decisively breaking with European countries out of gut dislike, and beginning instead to form either a US-Russian alliance of sympathies, or if not that, then at least a relationship with Russia that is rhetorically much friendlier than that with Europe. I think the fear is starting to take root in Europe that the US would effectively switch sides in return for Russia granting it mineral rights in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. This heel turn seems unlikely, but things are murky enough that it is worrying people.

I feel that this rebalancing is already working in a way towards achieving stated Trump goals – it certainly is succeeding in restoring Europe's appetite for military spending (underinvestment here is one thing Trump has been consistently right about but European leaders have buried their heads in the sand on, hoping he'd go away). But the current situation re Ukraine is also sending confusing signals, as it had previously seemed as though the US wanted Europe to step up and be part of a solution for Ukraine, whereas currently it seems they actively want to stop Europe from having a role in peace talks. The motive for this appears to be stopping Europe from asking terms of Russia that would delay a solution the US and Russia find jointly satisfactory, though perhaps there is more going on beneath the surface.

I did not have the impression that the American population generally has gone through this kind of Europe->Russia realignment in their hearts, Russians still being a regular foil for the good guys in movies (said movies coming from liberal-leaning Hollywood, sure). I have the impression that moving towards Russia is an aspect of foreign policy that Trump has not built domestic support for. But maybe this is wrong. Maybe the average American now thinks not only "Europe should contribute more to solve their own defence problems", but furthermore, "Europe should get its nose out of international affairs and attempt to help only when it's spoken to. We, Russia and China are in charge now."

I'm writing this without especially detailed knowledge of foreign policy, but I'm more interested here in the emotional calibration of ordinary Americans generally. What outcomes would they accept, what outcomes are they afraid of, who do they feel warm to and who not, and to what extent do they feel entirely insulated from global events, alliances and enmities?

I had a longer post that got eaten. But here it is in short:

Americans aren't turning towards Russia, but some are turning away from Europe. The reason is simple, Europe has picked a side in the American culture war, and it is the far left side. That is not a good formula for maintaining good relations with America because even when we have a Democratic government, you guys are still to the left of it by a lot. There's the immigration piece, the welfare, the speech regulations, the climate alarm. And it doesn't help that Brussels and Berlin's default position is "never compromise".

So now we turn to military spending. Europe has failed at this from not only a monetary perspective, but from a readiness perspective to an even worse degree for decades. And what are you asking Americans to defend (while you certainly attempt to appear unwilling to do so yourselves)? An increasingly authoritarian Bureaucracy who are so intent on being authoritarian they'd rather cripple their own economy than let a little freedom spill out.

So, we are at a point similar to the point where we were around 1916 or so. Is it really wise for the US to jump in yet? I'd argue it was far too early for us in WWI. We should have let the sides bleed a bit more and come in and swept it all aside instead of what we did, which yielded the ineffectual Treaty of Versailles and more conflict just a generation later.

The reason is simple, Europe has picked a side in the American culture war, and it is the far left side.

That accusation is a bit rich, because the causation is the other way around. It's not like a bunch of Blue Tribers somehow appeared in Europe and decided to pick a side in the US culture war. What in fact happened is that the Global American / Globohomo Empire poured lots of money and influence into its causes in Europe (among other places) through non-profits and NGOs which in turn recruited, trained and indoctrinated, directly and indirectly, the local cadre of Blue culture warriors and their sympathizers in Europe, all of whom incidentally consume no cultural and ideological products other than that produced by the US Blue Tribe, and adopt their talking points accordingly.

European leftism has been steadily feeding into the US via academia and the popular arts since the 1920s, if not earlier. The U.S. intelligenstia and trend-setters have always looked at Europe as more sophisticated and culturally respectable, especially its revolutionaries.

I agree, but @anti_dan was commenting on the current situation, when the feeding process is flowing the opposite direction.

The major communist parties of Europe weren't American-funded. Europe has a quite a strong revolutionary-left tendency on its own, completely independent of and long-pre-existing Soros/GAE-bux.

But it isn't the few and marginal European communists and revolutionary leftists that picked a side in the US culture war, is it?

Are you sure? Which side is antifa on? Which side were Sacco & Vanzetti on? What side are the IWW and the student movements of the 60's and 70's on?

Which side is antifa on? In the US, firmly with the democrats.

I maintain that the involvement of these particular groups in the US culture war is probably marginal/negligible, because they are marginal themselves.

Which side is antifa on?

"Its complicated". There are more "green" and more "old left" people. Current polls for the coming german election are about 2:1.

I think the cultural poison that has spread across Europe is a Western problem more than it is solely an American one. Obviously, Neo-lib American influence played a major hand through the things you mentioned, but the progressive policy that our annoying American neo-libs try to implement are usually modeled after some European country's system. European countries have leftist policies that are highly touted by the American neo-lib establishment. I think it's more of a symbiotic relationship between European and American progressives that is being characterized by a lot of people, including @anti_dan, as a conflict between Europe and America. That's not how I see it though. It's an ideological war between progressivism, liberalism, and conservatism that affects all Western countries. We're having the same issues with Canada.

Progressivism gained tremendous momentum over the past 15-20 years because it was protected by the ideals and moral framework of Western liberalism. Liberalism could never properly defend or maintain itself, and once it became fully embraced it was destined to be consumed by whatever trending illiberal ideology the masses would be most tolerant of. That ideology was progressivism, and it has effectively Trojan Horsed itself into Western society and its institutions. Its supporters have leveraged those institutions in a way that proliferates their ideas and oppresses their dissidents and ideological opponents. It has gotten to the point that political moderates (mostly liberals) have started to be negatively affected.

We all get confused by making it about countries, or race, or income. These claims aren't entirely untrue. They have their own share of problems and issues to contend with, but they're less true right now than the suicidal, progressive ideology that has captured the Western mind.

Perhaps it is best to consider the American Empire a separate entity from both America itself and the foreign peoples it administers.

Brussels bureaucrats, USAID and the network of NGOs that tie them all together have more in common with each other than they do everybody else.

I mean, if you want to say Europe was easily colonized and seduced by the American left, I guess that is also accurate. But America has consistently presented Europe with the other option. From Reagan & Thatcher to Trump there has been another way prominently on display, and Europe shied away from those proposals.

What proposals from Reagan and Thatcher are you referring to, if I may ask?

Adopting a lower-tax, lower-welfare state system coupled with an emphasis on national defense.

Fair enough. But Helmut Kohl did at least try that, didn't he?

Helmut Kohl

He I think embraced some parts of it. Then again, that was all before I was even in middle school, and it was during the era where Germany was trying to re-unite.

I dont think it is only a matter of seduction. The International Community also wanted us to... not revive history, so to speak, and that means listening to supranational organisations and "civil society" and so on. It has annoyed the US right at times when it led to something especially leftist, but not enough to adjust imperial governance.

But America has consistently presented Europe with the other option

It would be nice if they never presented us with either.

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