site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   32233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The most shocking thing here is all the beauty filters Fox News is applying to Pam Bondi's face. The news channel should have some self respect; if they're not willing to show the truth on what Bondi actually looks like how can we trust they are telling the truth on anything else?

And yes, this judge should be charged and sentenced according to the law.

Could be down to High Definition TV and film? The problem with that, as soon as it started being used, was that now every tiny flaw and imperfection could be seen in high detail, so new kinds of makeup were needed to 'smooth out' features.

Seriously, though, if you're surprised that "public figure looks different in real life unposed shots than in polished, professional performance" well then I don't know how to break it to you about food stylists.

There's a difference between "Makeup used to conceal blemishes revealed by HDTV" and "Making a 60 year old look like a 30 year old" (which is what's seen here).

all the beauty filters

You sure it isn't makeup?

For some reason we've decided that manipulating peoples' perceptions by changing the physical objects they're looking at is acceptable, while manipulating peoples' perceptions by changing the images directly isn't.

See also fast food commercials. They are (or at least were) genuine footage of actual objects...which were only superficially related to the food they sold.

For some reason we've decided that manipulating peoples' perceptions by changing the physical objects they're looking at is acceptable, while manipulating peoples' perceptions by changing the images directly isn't.

That seems perfectly comprehensible to me- the object does look like that, after you changed it.

I don't see a moral difference between different levels of deception.

If you can buy X (a squished Big Mac) after being shown Y (a shiny, perfect Big Mac), then I don't really care if the intermediate step is X' (a squished Big Mac, which will be photoshopped) or Y' (a physically perfect, inedible big mac, which will be faithfully photographed).

I suspect that the image manipulation will become more accepted over time, as features like crowd deletion, de-blinking, and smart panoramas move from specialized desktop applications (eg. photoshop) to simple buttons in a camera.

I once had a reddit discussion about this, and how every Big Mac you get in Japan looks exactly like the ad. It's never been not true for me I was of course doubted and dismissed as a weeb or whatever. I sent my antagonist a photo a month or so later when my in-laws took the kids to McDonald's. Sure enough, a perfect Big Mac.

I thought it would be but having looked at the video there’s definitely a heavy filter effect of the kind you see on reality TV shows where the cast have final cut / editing rights (like the Kardashians).

If it's makeup it's the film stage set voodoo makeup which makes people look decades younger rather than ordinary makeup you do by yourself at home

A lot of news anchors basically wear a latex mask that is then painted to look human. They aren't in any position to call out the guests.

Expensive makeup gets away with being expensive because it works. People going on TV pay some professional to do their makeup because the results are worth it.

Expensive makeup gets away with being expensive because it works.

To be sure, a lot of that stuff only works at a fixed set of angles and with controlled lighting.

It works better but in a narrower field of application. You can't wear that stuff out to a nightclub.

A lot of news anchors basically wear a latex mask that is then painted to look human.

This definitely isn’t true. The weird latex mask things are memes for Chinese viral bait TikToks.

A lot of news anchors basically wear a latex mask that is then painted to look human

This is news to me and sounds hard to believe. Also Gemini thinks it is False, source?

In asia perhaps, they love the fake nose bridge prosthetic makeup

Not in Japan. Yes there is such make-up but not in news readers or anchors. At most the pearly white tooth caps (sashiba, crowns).

The news channel should have some self respect; if they're not willing to show the truth on what Bondi actually looks like how can we trust they are telling the truth on anything else?

That video is 360p and Youtube will not let me increase the resolution. Which makes your complaint a nothingburger.

360p doesn't make a 60 year old look 25.

It smooths out fine details, so it pretty much does, since you can't see skin wrinkles, at least not easily (and it's compressed, besides).

Found higher quality video at 720p here: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6371935854112

Also available here on youtube: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pHXo18bFo64

Bondi still looks 25 facially but in this video you can see the dried out neck more clearly showing her true age.

Either it's makeup or she had a hydrafacial appointment in the last 24 hours (can personally recommend). That's the only think I know of which can make tired and aged skin look so radiant.

Either it's makeup or she had a hydrafacial appointment in the last 24 hours (can personally recommend). That's the only think I know of which can make tired and aged skin look so radiant.

As a beard guy, should I actually shave so I can get a facial and then regrow my beard?

No, in the time it takes to regrow your beard the effects will wear off.

If you know you want a hydrafacial it's generally recommended you shave the previous day but not necessary. Depends on whether you're happy losing your beard for the procedure. Btw, the short term glow effects wear off after a few days and after about 2 months your skin will be back to a state as if you'd never had the facial, it's a routine thing you have to repeat regularly if you want the results to maintain over time and not just a one/few shot procedure.

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