site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   36176 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 5, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’m going to disagree here. Yes, we knew about the Indian removals of the 1800s and the slave trade and colonialism. But they weren’t things that people were supposed to feel deep guilt about. Indian removal was seen as perhaps unfortunate, but necessary to build a civilization in America. Hitler changed that because he moved at an industrial pace and we won in time to film the aftermath. He was also a gift to the Military-Industrial complex, as the specter of Hitler somewhere in the world was useful to convince tge populace that they should send their sons to some military adventure out in the world, and for that, we needed a huge military. Anti-racism is also politically useful globally because it gives those nonwhite nations a reason to choose our side — we fought genocidal racism.

Without Hitler I don’t think it happens. Without Hitler racism goes from being the evil to being on par with any number of other political evils that we knew about and don’t celebrate, but don’t punish ourselves over. And there are plenty of other evils to bring up.

Certainly there were lots of people who at the time of the Holocaust saw it as a uniquely terrible crime, even as it was ongoing. For example in July 1944, Churchill wrote to Anthony Eden (concerning the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz):

There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved. I cannot therefore feel that this is the kind of ordinary case which is put through the Protecting Power, as, for instance, the lack of feeding or sanitary conditions in some particular prisoners’ camp. There should therefore, in my opinion, be no negotiations of any kind on this subject. Declarations should be made in public, so that everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death.

It's worth noting that Churchill does not, in this passage nor anywhere else in writing- including Churchill's six volumes of Second World War, reference Nazi gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. The Holocaust is not referenced at all in any concrete terms either in Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe, nor in Charles de Gaulle's memoirs.

One rule of thumb which never, ever fails is that any claim you can be arrested for questioning is false. It's been like that through recorded history. Why would gas chambers in WW2 be some singular exception to this otherwise completely reliable rule?

You can be arrested in Ukraine for questioning Holodomor. Does this falsify Holodomor?

This seems like a fairly odd rule in general. People have been arrested throughout history for advocating claims that are not true. For instance, it is literally impossible for the claims of all religions (or the central claim of atheism) to be true, and yet, throughout history, it has been typical for people to get arrested for advocating all and sundry religions or for advancing atheism.

Why do gas chambers matter?

The intentional mass killings of civilians by axis forces during WWII were a terrible crime, and many officers in axis forces deserved to be prosecuted. I don’t see why it being done with gas chambers or not(and everyone agrees that many of the killings were not done with gas chambers) is a relevant distinction.

The gas chamber narrative is epistemic violence. It uses force to stop ideas moving from my mind to my mouth. I can't express that I find it implausible. And the force is applied for two reasons, both of which I think are legitimate and fill me with rage:

  1. Allowing the public to question one aspect of the Holocaust narrative would undermine the whole premise, and since that premise is a central part of our faith, the epistemic violence is acceptable collateral damage.

  2. Point deer, make horse: forcing people to mouth absurdities in public outs people who value integrity over loyalty; these people are potential traitors to the regime, making the epistemic violence acceptance collateral damage.

(Let's assume for now that it's false but not possible in polite company to deny it. You can substitute any of the other narratives we're forced to mount (e.g. blank slate theory) in the above without changing the structure of my argument.)

For my part, I turn the whole thing around. Overturning of the structure of society is acceptable collateral damage in making the epistemic violence stop.

It doesn't seem worth noting unless you care about the history of chemical warfare and it's supporters. Churchill had a complicated political history with chemical and gas weapons.

It is worth noting in understanding the WWII mythos that is the subject of the discussion. Why was it not mentioned at all in thousands of pages of memoirs across the most important leaders? There are two theories: the mainstream theory is that this is just a testament to how much Allied leaders were ambivalent towards Jews, therefore also providing evidence they wouldn't wage a psychological warfare campaign to sacralize a Jewish victimization narrative which is the ultimate bedrock to this entire discussion- including the reason a song like this is censored so heavily. The Revisionist theory is that they knew the nonsense story about millions being tricked into gas chambers disguised as shower rooms would eventually be debunked like the very similar WWI propaganda about the Kaiser's death factories.

But @johnfabian is wrong that Churchill's writing represents the Holocaust being viewed as uniquely terrible early on, it isn't mentioned at all in many volumes of writing across thousands of pages written by the most important belligerents who otherwise have a strong incentive to feature that story to justify their own frame of the war.

The Dream, 1947 The Dream was Churchill’s fanciful short story about conversing with his long-dead father in 1947. In it he explains all that had happened since his father died in 1895. The full text is available. Referring again to the Holocaust, he spoke of the two World Wars:

“Papa,” I said, “in each of them about thirty million men were killed in battle. In the last one seven million were murdered in cold blood, mainly by the Germans. They made human slaughter-pens like the Chicago stockyards. Europe is a ruin. Many of her cities have been blown to pieces by bombs. Ten capitals in Eastern Europe are in Russian hands…. Far gone are the days of Queen Victoria and a settled world order. But, having gone through so much, we do not despair.”8

That wasn't hard to find.

So we're talking about one of the biggest events of WWII, and certainly the most unusual event, with millions of men, women and children allegedly being tricked into gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower and murdered. It's the event that forms the foundation of the contemporary anti-Christ mythos around Hitler.

And you couldn't find a single concrete reference to that in Winston Churchill's six-volume The Second World War, as I said, so you instead point to a single vague reference in a dialogue during a dream-sequence in a short story, which doesn't mention gas chambers or even Jews. Certainly my point still stands very, very tall. The fact you have to reach so hard to find a single reference of this world-changing event (which doesn't directly mention it in any case, it's just a literary allusion) from someone like Churchill proves the point very well.

I don't really believe you in the first place, and I'm not about to scan a book I have no interest in reading.

You made it sound like they never talked about it. But they obviously have in other contexts.

They didn't memory hole this thing. Multiple world leaders basically went from never caring about the Jews and actively keeping Jewish immigrants out of their country to being willing to help them found their own nation state.

Your an unreliable source of facts for me. It's like when I used to talk to 9/11 truthers. Sometimes what they said was correct in a very technical sense, but it would lead to false impressions. The "jet fuel can't melt steal beams" was the memed example. It always took a ton of effort to tease out the truth, way more than their initial assertion.

I've seen other people go through that circus with you. I'm unimpressed. As far as I remember your alternate history basically comes down to something like "gas chambers weren't used and only about 2-3 million Jews died" which seems like not enough to even change anyone's reaction.

The Germans were capable of a 1% death rate in prison camps (the death rate of American POWs). Those are optimal circumstances, since those prisoners are more likely to be healthy young men.

There was an estimated 10 million Jews in Europe. Giving you a nicer target like 500k (5% death rate) which assumes all Jews in Europe were captured and numbers still fall way short of the Germans running normal prison camps where they make an effort to keep people alive.

I also don't really care how mass murderers achieve their numbers. Stalin and Mao got their record breaking numbers through starvation and brutal work conditions, no gas required. They were still evil assholes that committed atrocities. The fact that they aren't condemned as heavily as Hitler is something I blame on leftist academics and media covering for the communist regimes. The Jewish conspiracy angle makes little sense to me since vast number of Jews were also killed by Stalin.

It's pretty dishonest to pretend that nobody would react to the revelation that the entire extermination camp and gas chamber story was a lie, and nobody was killed in that fashion. You are saying you wouldn't care if that turned out to be false (I don't believe you by the way) but it would be shocking to many people. Certainly that story is the epicenter of the placement of Hitler as the anti-Christ of Western Methology. Things get very awkward if you admit the entire gas chamber and extermination camp story was all just a huge lie meant to manipulate the public, a lie you will get arrested in Europe for challenging.

The Germans were capable of a 1% death rate in prison camps (the death rate of American POWs).

The Typhus epidemic killed 2-3 million people during WWI, mostly civilians. The Germans did not have a vaccine for Typhus during WWII.

The conditions in the concentration camps were also tolerable throughout most of the war, save for outbreaks of disease. It was in the final months of the war when German infrastructure was being destroyed from all sides that the catastrophic conditions became ubiquitous, a fact that this Revisionist film covers very well.

More comments

That fits the ambivalence theory. I don’t see anything in that statement that suggests he sees “the stockyards slaughter house pens” as worse than the ruin of Europe or the destruction of Eastern European capitals.

He was listing the most horrible things that have happened. He considered it equivalent to Europe being a bombed out ruin and 30 million combat deaths. I don't think a plain reading of the passage ever lands on "ambivalence".

I mean, yes. But he also doesn’t really separate out the single event that modern discourse around WW2 the holocaust is the tragedy of the war. Here, it’s surrounded by other atrocities— battle casualties, burned capitols, European cities in ruins. It has not yet developed the mythical power that it will hold much later on. A modern writer talking about the events listed in this passage would never dare to put the holocaust in the same paragraph as other casualties of the war. Modern telling puts the holocaust front and center, alone, with no other atrocities allowed to detract from it. That’s not how Churchill sees WW2. To him, the holocaust is one tragedy among several others, not something uniquely evil or even more evil than the other events of the war.

To post mythic generations, this would be pretty ambivalent, and if the person were Jewish, he’d probably consider such a retelling pretty antisemitic as it downplayed the holocaust compared to how modern history talks about it.

More comments

I’m going to disagree here. Yes, we knew about the Indian removals of the 1800s and the slave trade and colonialism. But they weren’t things that people were supposed to feel deep guilt about. Indian removal was seen as perhaps unfortunate, but necessary to build a civilization in America.

I think Crowstep is right. In Canada, since they don't have nearly so much slavery to feel guilty about, they DO feel guilty about their Indian First Nations stuff, to a crazy degree, like confessing to genocide about deaths due to disease at residential schools.

It's even worse - we had our flags at half mast for like 6 months because a ground penetrating radar found "disturbances" under ground. We now know it was roots, rocks - no excavation has or will take place.

The whiplash from "celebrating canada day is evil" to "elbows up! I love Canada!" has been a lot to take in

Wait, really, everyone just changed their tune about this? When did that happen, and how?

Essentially this took place about the time Donald Trump was elected. It coincided with an inevitable election that we knew was going to be called. Trudeau (polling at catastrophically low numbers) dipped out, and Mark Carney took over the (floundering) Liberal Party. He successfully pivoted and ran on a very nationalist campaign (in opposition to USA/Trump), successfully outflanking the previously ascendant Conservative Party. Rallies were full of Canada imagery, flags (a hate symbol during the trucker protests), colors. He invoked concepts of monarchy, John A McDonald (previously, a genocider). And the NDP (our leftist party) collapsed enough to hand him the victory. (Cons only win if the left is split).

Canada exists as a nation only in opposition to what happens in the states. We have very little national identity to begin with - funny that the old rich white guy who won the election by tapping into boomer nationalist fervor was a liberal, but these are strange times.

successfully pivoted

There was no pivot; Easterners were always going to vote for themselves and were hungry for an excuse.

a hate symbol during the trucker protests

Who/whom. The flag being used to represent people it's not intended to represent, in a way it wasn't made to represent them, is powerful symbolism. Same thing with the SuperStraight flag- the Canadian flag is for Easterners, by Easterners; that tree doesn't naturally grow outside Upper/Lower Canada.

He invoked concepts of [the East has the moral right to fuck up everything]

Indeed.

Cons only win if the left is split

The West (the free, productive part of Canada) only wins when the East is split. The NDP/Western Left- what used to be our mechanism of co-operation between West and East- has collapsed in favor of Eastern imperialism (the Western Left tried to out-East the East and failed). We were on the road to reconciliation, but Easterners blew it up, and they did so deliberately because they wanted to play culture warrior.

We have very little national identity to begin with

Fortunately for the rest of us, the Easterners are hell-bent on sabotaging it every chance they get. We'd be better off on our own.

I'm fine with separation but only if we become a part of the USA. A landlocked province would be disastrous, no?

This is why I suggest AB ensures it captures the part of BC that isn't Vancouver or its Island with it; Kitimat is your best shot, a warm-water port, and ideologically opposed to Victoria.

SK and MB could come along as well but Hudson Bay, like the St. Lawrence, is not warm water (which is why Canada will never let the Eastern provinces go, as Halifax is their only warm-water port).

A big chunk of the US white population just feels a lot less guilty about slavery than Canadians would.

A big chunk of the US white population just feels a lot less guilty about slavery than Canadians would.

I mean I have no slaveowner ancestors, and I have at least one ancestor that fought on the Union side of the Civil War. Why the hell would (or should) I feel any guilt over it? I imagine most white Americans that aren't direct descendants of slaveowners would feel similarly.

I mean, a pretty decent chunk of white descendants of slave owners are proud of their confederate ancestors.

It's a form of overcompensation you usually see on losing sides.

That might just be due to the US's cultural influence. They feel like their white people must have done something horrible to feel guilty about, since that's the message they're hearing pushed all the time, even if it's really about the US and not Canada.

Also not to be all 'Da Jews' but there has been a group of people with huge cultural powers who have had a particularly large grudge when it comes to pushing the moral cause of WW2 and ushering a lot of identitarian talk of reparations et Al to the forefront. Talat Pasha doesn't exactly get the same negative branding and even Stalin and Mao haven't been as effectively pariahed

even Stalin and Mao haven't been as effectively pariahed

I think those two are helped by the sheer number of intellectuals who either fell for live propaganda about how great life was in the USSR, or who are generally pro-socialist/pro-communist and would rather not draw attention to such high-profile failure states.

It's not so much intellectuals, but there are some right-wingers who believe Russia's actually a great wellspring of social conservatism. I know some of them personally. The overwhelming majority think Russia's a terrible, dictatorial place -- but there are a few who think the performative, nationalistic Orthodoxy of the government (as opposed to the quiet piety of the babushka) is an actual representation of Russian culture.

It's psychologically very hard to justify a worldview if there isn't somewhere where it's put into practice. So the deep desire to see your worldview reflected somewhere is what drives both the 20th century Soviet-boosters and the 21st century Russia-boosters. And it also drives, say, evangelicals to believe Trump is a great Christian man, despite his personal conduct and his lack of repentance!

as opposed to the quiet piety of the babushka) is an actual representation of Russian culture.

This is also, statistically, not a very good representation of Russian culture- Russia does not have a high church attendance rate, even by European standards, and the more religious former Soviet countries are the ones which like Russia less(Georgia, Ukraine, remoter ‘stans).

Very true. My point is that the idea that Russia is a highly religious country is the propaganda spin of the government -- piety in Russia is rare, and is a thing for small (quiet) numbers of old grandmas.

Continuity of their states also probably impacts it. If Chinese Communism had fallen with the death of Mao he's probably viewed a lot differently versus now where he's definitely controversial but cannot be effectively completely nuked without undermining nation building.

Seeing the recent unexpected shift in online discourse to describe Trump as being similar to Mao, I wonder as well if his crimes are soon to be spotlighted more than they used to be...

Yeah, but among who? I am skeptical the left will suddenly cancel the Maoists because of some shifting valences.

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