site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   27333 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 26, 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.

Glen Greenwald on Tucker Carlson's show shits all over the CIA and puts in a succinct way the ties between Israeli intelligence and Epstein, lo and behold suddenly on the same day his private sex tape with his husband gets leaked.

Glenn is now denying that he retweeted the video. Normally I'd interpret is as damage control / cope, but I actually have reason to believe him.

You see, I browse twitter through a bespoke nitter -> rss -> miniflux stack, that archives every feed I'm subscribed to, and I'm subscribed to Greenwald, yet I see no trace of the retweet.

The system isn't bulletproof - don't remember the exact settings, but it downloads fresh content only every couple minutes, so there's enough time to post and delete something between refreshes; or sometimes I get hit by rate limiting - but it's pretty good (I routinely catch Alan MacLeod deleting his bangers / retarded takes), so at this point I'm going to need more than a screenshot to believe he actually did this.

I love the insinuation that intel agencies are behind the leak of his sex vids. Are you so fucking edgy a journalist that Mossad used 0-day cyber arms to hack sex vids out of your possession somehow to embarrass you? Jokes on them, I have nothing to be embarrassed about, because my sex vids are 🔥🔥🔥

Please don't watch though, this is a violation of my privacy. My private hot gay sex, that is. Because I bring the truth so hard.

My prediction for who was responsible is the PR firm Jake Tapper hired to push his ridiculous expose of the cover up of Biden's cognitive decline. It could have been mossad or the cia, inserting FUD to reduce Greenwald to Alex Jones tier in the mainstream's eyes, but Greenwald is probably Tapper's strongest critic and I think without this story more people would be mocking Tapper for putting that book out when back in the day he did things like claiming Lana Trump was bullying stuttering kids by wishing Biden didn't have so much trouble speaking (which Greenwald and Tucker kick off the interview mocking).

That's not how these things work.

You just accumulate material on persons of interest (Greenwald would long have been on many's lists) and whenever they start to say stuff that you don't really want heard you use the stuff you have to derail the conversation.

If you doubt State actors are doing this shit you're just blind. We have endless receipts at this point, and Greenwald himself helped pore through much of them, actually.

What conversation did this sex vid leak derail?

His interview with Tucker Carlson, arguably.

Among Greenwald’s core audience (leftists and third-worldists who hate the American political establishment but are not in any way ‘right wing’) this is presumably no big deal. Among Islamist and far-right antisemites and anti-Israel activists…well, Greenwald is literally a gay Jew, so they would have little love for him in any case.

Not that this means it wasn’t an intelligence leak, but I doubt this changes much for him.

it might hurt greenwald's reach with the normies. whenever someone brings up glen's reporting with normies someone else can point to the sex videos to derail the conversation.

Oh I don't think it does. But twitter is talking about embarrassing sex videos instead of how the intelligence community very likely set up a celebrity pedo ring and now it's unlikely to bubble up to anything actionable. Money well spent for someone I'm sure.

maybe I'm not the intended audience but I would never have heard about his interview with Tucker if not for this leak, so...

How likely are you to talk to people who have any actual power about it? That's the only metric that matters. The feds are happy enough with Epstein being relegated to the domain of memes about how he didn't kill himself. That has no chance of becoming a senate hearing.

I am unlikely to. But, why would Glenn Greenwald being into pervy stuff matter if I was?

Is the implication that if I tried to do anything about Epstein, powers that be would hack my pervy stuff and leak it too?

Or you know, suicide you. I think the hint is large enough at this point.

His husband died years ago from a suspicious infection. The video is apparently of a prostitute.

Speaking of which, I find Bernard Kerik’s recent death suspicious. It comes out that he lobbies for Qatar and within a week he is hospitalized for heart issues, dying a month later, with no prior history of heart issues.

CIA's heart attack gun, hard at work.

In case anything thinks I'm joking: that's supposedly a real thing. Air pressure handgun that shoots frozen toxin shards. There were senate hearings about it.

Biggest problem with the toxin-based heart attack gun is that it's easily detectable by coroners, so long as they actually bother to look for it. If your target is old or unhealthy enough (or you grease the coroner's palms) then you have a chance of it going unnoticed.

The assertion in that senate hearing was that the toxin entry hole would be tiny like a mosquito bite and easily overlooked in an autopsy. These are ultra-potent shellfish toxins that kill from minute quantities.

I see, didn't care enough to pry into his home life to learn that. This whole episode has been hilarious watching the usual suspects bend over backwards to try and smear him in front of what they imagine is a conservative crowd. It didn't work with Trump and it will not work with people who are absolutely through with Israel's and Mossad's shenanigans

You didn't care enough about a top level post to get the basic facts straight. That's fine, I guess, but then the question is why should anyone care about your take? Are we really here for "let's get the opinions of people that know very little about the subject matter"?

You don't need to know who he's making his dom/sub home made porn videos for, if I'm honest we shouldn't even know his marital status.

It’s one thing to claim that it’s not a relevant fact. It’s quite another to be straight up defending ignorance and incuriousness.

In any event, you were the one that put the irrelevant and incorrect fact into your original post. If it didn’t matter who it was with, then you could’ve just not written anything about it.

I didn't watch them, so I assumed its with his dude, I still don't care who he has sex with (or not)

Here's - Greenwald's statement on the video - don't use Twitter search, use grok, that's the best thing about grok. Well that and voice chat.

Edit: buh I'm an idiot, I meant to post this in reply to @self_made_human below.

The dude retweeted the video himself. I think it's far more likely to be an extension of his questionable findom practices instead of Da Jews.

From my understanding, he is denying retweeting it.

Is there any proof it was him?

findom practices instead of Da Jews

Some jokes just write themselves.

I think it's far more likely to be an extension of his questionable findom practices

Mash (X) to doubt

I keep hearing people say that, so maybe you can explain to me what happened there. Was he bragging? Was the retweet an attempt to get ahead of the scandal?

I mean if it's out there it's out there, it will be seen. At least if you rt yourself people who see it will also see your response.

Sure, but everybody's acting like no one would know about the video barring Greenwald's actions themselves. So I'm asking what context justifies the conclusion.

Can't say. I saw a screenshot of it, and now I can find people talking about the incident, but Twitter search sucks ass.

My favorite part of this is the anti-woke-right brigade suddenly deciding they don't like gay sexual degeneracy.

Suddenly? Acknowledging that it is a dangerous disease spreading subculture has been part of the anti-woke right from the beginning.

Yeah looks like parentheses are in order. I meant anti-(woke-right), not (anti-woke)-right.

Following Trump's recent victory, some anti-woke centrists decided they need to make sure the pendulum does not swing back too far in the other direction, and started attacking people to their right. They coined the term "Woke Right" to show that their actions are justified by the more extreme elements on the right being functionally the same as the woke left.

It's these people that suddenly decided that boosting leaked videos showing you're a paypig findom-enjoyer is a valid angle of attack on someone.

People are still trying to make "woke right" happen? Give it up Gretchen.

Maybe using capitals? anti-Woke Right is different to anti-Woke right? Though I agree, it's confusing all round.

As to the videos - I don't know the guy, it's cheeky of me to put forward opinions on his personal morality, but it's a tough one. The gay acceptance/gay marriage movement pushed hard on mainstreaming as representing "no, all that stuff about gays being degenerate is propaganda, they just want to get married and have kids like you".

And then the guy has his sex tapes released and oops yeah gay widower with kids is engaging in kink with prostitutes. Well, just like straight guys too so I suppose that is true equality!

I have to agree that this particular kink isn't the worst example of perversity that it could be, just second-hand embarrassment for anyone who doesn't share those kinks. I think we as a society probably are gone past any surviving standards of "public figures should behave decorously" never mind "private citizens shouldn't be frequenting prostitutes".

I still don't understand why the hell people make sex tapes (or take nudes for their partners) in the first place, though. We have plenty of examples of how that goes bad - the tapes get leaked, you break up and your ex uses the nudes for revenge porn, or even in the first place while you're still together they're sharing those private images around with their friends.

There's... a lot of guys where "if it'd never leave my circle of friends" is absolutely a desirable state, rather than a risk. Exhibitionism can have a lot of different drivers, ranging from the less good (eg risk-taking) to the better (eg, here's power over me because I trust you, I want to be seen as scoring good at sex which is a normal and possible thing to do), but even outside of gay circles that have particular reasons for it (for Greenwald's age range, getting caught doing this was at least theoretically a crime when he started fucking, which adds a lot of frission to 'oh no someone caught me') it's pretty common.

The risks make it undesirable for even many with the kink, and should probably make it undesirable for many more that are thinking with their upper head, but it's not an ungrounded fixation.

woke-right is such a misnomer, you can't just use woke- for a generic "hardcore true believer" it waters down the term.

woke-right is such a misnomer, you can't just use woke- for a generic "hardcore true believer" it waters down the term.

James Lindsay uses it on Twitter as a derogatory term for anti-Jewish right wingers, who then all abuse, ratio, and fart on him in his threads. That's all I know it as.

The dunking came after, he started the use of the term trying to convince people that Auron MacIntyre and the DR were running some conspiracy to bring Archangel Michael into this world. His terms, not mine.

In practice it's just a rethorical trick to try and paint any opposition to liberalism from the right with the same brush as opposition from the left.

Which frankly is a transparently losing tactic in world where most people (and an even larger proportion of serious political philosophers) have long given up on the sort of logical positivism that underlies Lindsey's worldview.

trying to convince people that Auron MacIntyre and the DR were running some conspiracy to bring Archangel Michael into this world

Well dang, this is the kind of bait that grabs my interest. Any details? I'm sort of accustomed to hearing about immanentizing the eschaton, but I've never heard of involving the Archangel Michael before, though yeah okay maybe I can see it... in his role as the Weigher of Souls, if you're gonna bring about the end of the world, you need him to appear first.

Not sure on the specific context that led to Lindsay making such an unhinged sounding tweet but here it is: https://x.com/ConceptualJames/status/1840510556056195340

More comments

As I understand it, “woke right” doesn’t just mean “hardcore right-winger”; it means, roughly, co-opting the tactics and analytical methods of wokeism to advance a right-wing political agenda.

For example, hiring quotas for conservatives in academia to boost “viewpoint diversity”, or affirmative action for flyover-country whites, would be “woke right” policies, while Ramaswamy/Musk-style “green cards stapled to STEM degrees” would be “tech right”.

Is trying to associate people, who's views you don't like, with nazis a woke tactic? Do you know who'd qualify as "woke right" if the answer to that question was "yes"?

Frankly both pro-Israel and anti-Israel right-wingers are guilty of this, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Even aside from Israel/Palestine stuff, I’ve heard NRA types go on about how the Nazis confiscated firearms and Ron Paul libertarians draw comparisons between the PATRIOT Act and the Nuremberg laws. If we relax the reference class to include communists as well as Nazis, then basically every strand of the conservative movement from the 1980s onward has had adherents who make such comparisons to their ideological enemies.

On the topic of anti-Israel right-wingers: they come in at least three different varieties, none of which is per se what I would consider “woke right”, exactly:

  1. Paleoconservatives of Pat Buchanan’s ilk, who are skeptical of foreign entanglements in general and often support for Israel in particular. These types may harbor some negative opinions about Jewish influence in American politics, but don’t make it the center of their political worldview, nor do they generally harbor any animus towards individual Jews or to their religion.

This group may have some overlap with the “woke right” in the sense that they view preserving the historic American “national character”, and perhaps even the specific “founding stock” ethnicity, as an important political goal; as such, they are, for example, opposed to mass immigration. But the overall vibe of paleocons is very different: more patrician, more old-school Ivy League WASP (at least in bearing, if not actual ancestry) rather than Ellis Islander/white ethnic.

  1. Right(-ish)-of-center contrarians in the vein of Theo Von and Joe Rogan. While open to “questioning the narrative” and “doing their own research” and, indeed, being somewhat prone to conspiracy theorizing in general (e.g. Covid-19 origins, QAnon, 9/11 truth, etc.), these folks mostly seem to have soured on Israel due to (what they perceive as) atrocities committed in the current Gaza conflict. They do not deny the historicity of the Holocaust, though they are increasingly immune to its use as a mystical talisman that renders any criticism of Israel null and void. They likewise do not deny Israel’s right to exist, and, like the paleocons, do not personally hate Jews or Judaism.

These types are furthest from the “woke right” in my view: they genuinely want to go back to 90s-style colorblind meritocracy, with no handouts or special treatment for anyone, white or not.

  1. Out-and-out Holocaust deniers, who invariably do hate Jews and Judaism. Even when they hide behind “just asking questions” or “look at how much influence AIPAC has” or “anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism”—all of which are in theory positions within the ordinary bounds of political discourse or academic inquiry, _when posed in good faith_—I have literally never once known a Holocaust denier not to loathe Jews on a personal level. IME, Holocaust denial in actual practice is, without exception, an argument-as-soldier, and behind the claims of “the Holocaust never happened”, the undercurrent of “but wouldn’t it be great if it had?” is always palpable.

This view is strictly orthogonal to “woke right”-ism, though I would hazard a guess that it’s more common on the “woke right” than on the “tech right”, if only because the latter (correctly, in my opinion) usually attribute Ashkenazi over-representation mostly to IQ, which rather tends to immunize them against crude conspiracies about Jewish subversion and the attendant animosity towards Jews.

EDIT: perhaps you were gesturing at something like the following syllogism: “woke tactics + right-wing views = ‘woke right’; ~every right-winger compares his opponents to Nazis, which is a woke tactic; ergo the entire right is ‘woke right’”

My claim, on the other hand, is that Nazi comparisons are so ubiquitous (cf. Godwin’s law) that it doesn’t make sense to call it a “woke tactic”; indeed, it precedes wokeism by decades.

In practice, lots of paleoconservatives are mildly antisemitic on a religious if not necessarily ethnic level; my filter bubble is ground zero for paleoconservatism-as-more-than-an-intellectual-movement and while antisemitism is not universal, it's by no means rare either. Part of this is surely that Jewish activists do not like paleoconservatives, but suspicion of non-Christian religion is also very core to paleoconservative conceptions of purity testing on 'heritage American-ness', indeed moreso than race.

There's also plenty of paleoconservatives who, although they do not center their ideology around race, are unwilling to disavow white nationalism, either due to genuine though usually limited sympathy or because they see it as a soldier argument, and pattern match Jews to 'not-white and stubbornly unwilling to become white'.

perhaps you were gesturing at something like the following syllogism: “woke tactics + right-wing views = ‘woke right’; ~every right-winger compares his opponents to Nazis, which is a woke tactic; ergo the entire right is ‘woke right’”

No, I'm gesturing at the exact people who are using the term "woke right" and insisting it's meaningful, using the most hamfisted equivocation between their opponents and Nazis.

I get that you could, in theory, define it in such a way that it actually makes sense, and points at similarities between the woke left and specific factions of the right, but in practice it's just a tactic to avoid discussing ideas liberalism knows it will lose against.

The more obvious contradiction is that the very rhetorical trick of "woke right" is equivocation to refuse to address the arguments from Lindsey's right and instead denounce people by association.

Which if you recall the last decades is exactly what the cultural marxist playbook has been all about all this time. Lindsey ought to know, he's studied it more than anybody.

He's therefore denounced by his own choice of tactics. He desperately wants people to keep participating in debate and the marketplace of ideas, but only if he's able to control the outcome. Some open society!

It's these people that suddenly decided that boosting leaked videos showing you're a paypig findom-enjoyer is a valid angle of attack on someone.

I mean, given how insane of a concept it is to pay a sex worker to aggressively not have sex with you, I do consider doing that to be a major red flag for someone's judgment even in non-political terms.

given how insane of a concept it is to pay a sex worker to aggressively not have sex with you

Kink is not rational insert shrug emoji It's like the old joke:

Masochist: Beat me, beat me!
Sadist: No.

Greenwald isn't exactly a spring chicken. If he has poor judgement, I think people should be able to show that directly rather than via proxy.

Findom might be insane, but is probably on the least offensive side of the spectrum of degen behavior, and I find it darkly funny that the liberals freaking out about this apparently don't see all their gay friends are doing this right now.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Sure, his ideas should be judged on their own merits, regardless of what his conduct in his personal life is.

But to be clear, I don't find findom offensive because it's degenerate, I find it offensive because it's stupid -- there are much more efficient ways to pay people to get your rocks off, even if your thing is being humiliated. For instance, you could pay someone to actually have sex with you while telling you you're a loser.

It's an economic waste, is all. Like someone investing their fortune in beanie babies. I just couldn't look someone in the eyes or think them intelligent if I found out they did it.

For instance, you could pay someone to actually have sex with you while telling you you're a loser.

I believe that is the sub-type of kink known as humiliation kink? And the ultimate humiliation, I guess, is that you're not even good enough to use as a disposable fuck toy. Look, I dunno, even normal vanilla sex is not my thing so I have no idea how the wiring for the kinky stuff goes. Maybe it's all by degrees: you start off with having sex while being insulted, but after a while that's no longer good enough so you need more.

I think there are too many stupid hobbies and sinful acts that too many people engage in for your point to be of much relevance.

I think Arjin means the 'anti' woke right, as opposed to the 'anti-woke' right, which is what I think you mean. But I can't be sure either way, we need new terms for these things.

Yeah that's also my read, but it remains confusing, and the hypocrisy accusations don't help, since there's hypocrisy everywhere and all the way down. I guess arjin means james lindsay (who is the main anti-("woke-right") figure) who dislikes trump and tucker for being post-truth populists, may have also condemned greenwald, using his recently exposed sexual proclivities?

The anti-woke-right brigade has an almost perfect overlap with people willing to lie on behalf of Israel, which makes it perfectly understandable.

There's been some principled people out there, whether I like their principles or not, but yeah, it's been kinda hilarious watching people bend over backwards to either suddenly find a journalist more important than their longstanding adherence to natural law, or where the same people horrified that a musical center guy was fired for being gayand a bunch of competence issues suddenly find hoist petard jokes hilarious because something something Russia fandom. Especially for degeneracy that's little more than dressing in drag and doing the hula, so to speak. I expect Lindsay to be a hypocrite and a dumbass, but it's not just him, either.

((Though I can't claim any special level of correctness, here. I'll offer the Nice Cock complement to someone like cathode_g; for a journalist I can't really offer more than 'at least he found a hobby with some dignity'.))

“anti-woke-right” needs parentheses or something for clarification.

Three of them, even! (Sorry, couldn't resist).

Topical for Greenwald and maybe his opposition!

Braces -> LISP -> lisping -> male homosexuality -> also topical for Greenwald with some stretching? So maybe brackets.

I mean they’re mostly calling him out for being a hypocrite. Which is totally deserved.

Why does it seem like so many conservatives in the public eye are degenerate perverts? Lord have mercy on this wicked generation.

  • -13

Why does it seem like so many conservatives

Glenn Greenwald is a 'conservative' in the same way that Cindy Sheehan was a conservative for running against Nancy Pelosi.

Which is to say- he was a highly acclaimed / respected public voice when he was criticizing the Bush administration and Iraq War, and then quickly lost support when his criticisms continued despite the party in power changing.

Hypocrite how? He was never a right winger or social conservative. The only reason you're confusing him with them is that they're both opposed to the liberal elites.

He isn't right-wing, he is a life long leftist who has been consistently right about the forever wars, the surveillance state, military industrial complex and the over reach of intelligence agencies. As a right winger I don't like his social policies but I deeply respect the work he has done with Ed Snowden on the NSA and his continued reporting on the war machine.

Conservatives are more likely to anger intelligence agencies these days

About conservative degenerates generally:

  1. Something has to be a little bit wrong aberrant with you to be a conservative in a time when their sentiments are flatly unwelcome at our various employers' pride networking corporate events. When I meet someone with conservative leanings I have to determine what that guy's specific deal is, because there always is one. Redneck? Really religious? Too-clever-by-half contrarian? Socially retarded?

  2. Anymore I expect liberals to have some gay stuff going on, or at least to enthusiastically encourage it. So there's no opportunity for delicious, delicious hypocrisy and it's never framed as a clash with a larger set of values. Or the more sinister predators among their ranks are de-emphasized in order to minimize any damaging stigmas against other sexual deviants.

Concerning Greenwald specifically, it may be that gay white men will simply always be on the outs with whomever is in power.

flatly unwelcome at our various employers' pride networking corporate events.

Is that your moral barometer? I've heard of people using the Church's approval as a proxy for moral behaviour, but this might be the first time I've seen someone use corporations in that role.

The absurdity was very much intended.

Thanks for the candor.

Being self-aware that your opinions are absurd is much worse than standing defiant against accusations that your opinions are absurd, regardless of how strong the accusations are. If you already know you're wrong, why don't you change your mind?

I think brawnze is pointing out the absurdity of the corpoclerics and their religion. It's meant to be a little self deprecating, but also an indictment of tribalism. That's how I read it anyway.

I think brawnze is pointing out...That's how I read it anyway.

I read it as fullhearted participation. From the post (emphasis added):

When I meet someone with conservative leanings I have to determine what that guy's specific deal is, because there always is one. Redneck? Really religious? Too-clever-by-half contrarian? Socially retarded?

followed by a clarification that their judgment is deliberately rooted in bad standards.

It's usually difficult to distinguish people who are unserious jokers from those who have foreign (for lack of a better term) values that I'd like to learn about. At least unless they identify themselves.

Thank you Fruck. This is basically it. But also I'm not a liberal. Grouping the religious together with the socially retarded was supposed to be the self-deprecating part, but I didn't loudly enough signal my alliances or use enough long paragraphs, I guess.

I thought the comment was pretty even-handed. Who ever heard of a liberal calling people sexual deviants?

Also ulyssess just blocked me, after thanking me for the candor and asking me a question. Very lame of him.

More comments

Something has to be a little bit wrong with you to be a conservative in a time when their sentiments are flatly unwelcome at our various employers' pride networking corporate events. When I meet someone with conservative leanings I have to determine what that guy's specific deal is, because there always is one. Redneck? Really religious? Too-clever-by-half contrarian? Socially retarded?

This is very boo outgroup. No thanks bud.

Less boo outgroup, more a total lack of insecurity concerning my beliefs, at least on this anonymous forum.

A rebuttal is much more welcome than accusations of rule-breaking. Refer me to Amadan via the report button if you don't plan to add anything.

Edit: look I changed a word for you. Based on your profile it seems like your specific thing is that you're religious. The zeal of a convert, perhaps? Sometimes I wish I had found Christianity as an adult myself. I mean you no offense.

The report button goes to all the mods, not just me. I do not make all mod decisions, I just tend to be the most visible.

As for your post, well, kind of borderline. "Something has to be a little bit wrong aberrant with you to be a conservative in a time when their sentiments are flatly unwelcome at our various employers' pride networking corporate events." On one level, I get what you are saying, that someone who is publicly signaling opposition is probably a confrontational sort of personality and maybe looking for a fight? But phrased as if there is something inherently wrong or "aberrant" about being a conservative, it is not surprising you got peoples' backs up.

Otoh, @ThomasdelVasto saying:

Why does it seem like so many conservatives in the public eye are degenerate perverts? Lord have mercy on this wicked generation.

is hardly more conducive to a respectful exchange of ideas with people who do not share your ideology.

I don't think either post merits modding, but neither of you have much room to be complaining.

I appreciate you chiming in, and I apologize if I came off as complaining or if you felt as though you were being dragged into the discussion.

I was using synecdoche to refer to the mod team, yes.

The irony is that Thomas and I probably agree on a great number of issues, but he didn’t like my specific examples of potential low-agreeableness groups (some of which I am a part!) and unfortunately appears to have stopped reading.

Heard! Thanks for letting me know. I'll tone it down.

He can blow midgets in a gangbang of dolphins for all I care, what matters is his journalism, and he has been consistently on point. Also he's not an anti-degeneracy firebrand conservative.

Yeah I was mistaken for some reason I had him tagged in my head as a conservative. Idk.

Where's the hypocrisy? Where did you get the idea he's a conservative?

I've seen complaints about hypocrisy of conservative commentates defending Greenwald but those very same complaints (retweeted by James Lindsay) fume about "A leftist pervert with a public sex tape..." (as if he's the one that published it, lol). No sorry, the only hypocrites here are anti-woke-rightists.

I watched him on Tucker and it was very hard to take him seriously after seeing/hearing about the video.

The hypocrisy was at the end when he talking to Tucker about human connection being the most importsnt thing in life. Impossible to reconcile that with interracial gay findom meth sex.

You should not take any gay dude of his generation seriously then.

Him being into humiliation and findom is (in my estimation) somewhere in the middle of the scale for aberrant peculiarities when it comes to homosexuals.

I found it extremely easy to take him seriously, especially in the way he highlighted the political influence of israely politics over the US. They act as if we are their vasal state instead of the other way around.

That's a bit of a stretch. Hypocrisy would be if he claimed to be a good Christian boy, and then this stuff came out. Or if he made the same claim you did about the impossibility of human connection while engaging in interracial gay findom meth sex, and then the video came out. But this? Again, where is the hypocrisy, other than in some of the same people attacking him simping for literal porn actresses?

Oh weird I always just thought he was conservative. Never paid much attention to him tbh lol.

Yeah nevermind I retract my statement.

You may be confusing him with Greg Gutfeld, who hosts a program on Fox News. I make that mistake a lot.

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