site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 19, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'd be surprised if you've literally never written up some paean about something, but do you genuinely not understand why zero out of three of the highest-profile examples coming up dry might point a direction?

Dude, my effortposts are mostly about Hugo drama. FYI Impassionata's latest alt came by the other day to scream at me (personally!) about letting fascists run amok, and obviously I'm a fascist simp as evidenced by my failure to blah blah blah. (You didn't get a chance to see it, which I guess you can therefore also dismiss as unevidenced and therefore non-credible.) Amazing how the one thing I've never been wrong about, all these years, is how both sides reliably accuse me of the same thing.

No, I say it's covering your ass because when someone tried to point out people who did, here, this didn't change the slightest bit of your position.

Fine, I should not have said "no one." But no, I don't think AaahtheFrench and Impassionata "count" in any serious way. But I will stipulate there is a lizardman's constant for any proposition here on the Motte.

Because they're a subreddit that was formed around and because of supposed adherence to this principle, and its importance to appeal to Blues. Because they are not selected from Blues in some way that should make them atypically willing to overlook violent rhetoric. Because I keep asking you for examples of better Blue groups and organizations, and you haven't presented any. Because I've been looking for a near-decade for better Blues groups and organizations, and haven't found any.

I think you are overstating the significance of TheSchism, but as for "better Blue groups and organizations," what are your criteria? Public disavowals of political violence? The Democratic Party (including Biden himself) quickly condemned the Butler shooting. So did most major newspapers and churches (including the woke ones). The GOP quickly accused Biden of inciting it. You mentioned the attempted Kavanaugh assassination (didn't make much of a splash because the guy got arrested before anything happened) and Tesla vandalism, and I'll say fine, how many Red organizations jump up to condemn attempted assassinations, vandalism, and arson directed against Blues? Some, but often with the same defectors or mealy-mouthing we see when reversed. Is your thesis, or is it not, that Blues basically have defected from a norm against political violence and Reds have not?

((and, indeed, instead find Blues that spontaneously turn out to not; both "my father-in-law jokes or 'jokes' about throwing molotov cocktails at houses with Trump signs" and "the minecraft mod guy I worked with is really proud of punching Brendan Eich and wishes he did it more" are not hypotheticals.))

Okay, they're assholes. I've got some anecdotes about Red family members and coworkers too.

Yes, and I'm trying to get an answer out of why you think it's wrong, and if those reasons are supported.

I think it's wrong because I do not think the majority of Americans, of whatever political stripe, support or endorse political violence. I do not think you or FC have made a convincing case that Blues have shown stronger defection tendencies than Reds on this. The most proximal comparison seems to be responses to Jan. 6 vs responses to BLM, which are usually argued on the basis of which one was worse rather than who was more consistent about condemning it. Blues, unsurprisingly, think Jan. 6 was much worse, Reds think BLM was much worse - personally I agree that the BLM riots and other follow-on effects were objectively much, much worse, but crucially, neither side thinks they are actually defending political violence because Reds mostly claim Jan. 6 was a nothingburger and Blues mostly claim the riots were "mostly peaceful protests". I think both sides are wrong, and in this case Blues are more wrong, but it still doesn't make the case you are arguing.

Did I miss something? Netstack said this was the first time Trace got modded, it was his last set of posts here, and I defended Trace in most of his last thread, where the facts demanded it. Was there something earlier?

No, this is totally my bad. I misremembered him telling you off when it was WhiningCoil. My apologies for that one. (I think I remember you getting into it with him on Twitter recently, which probably helped derail my memory.)