site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   25846 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.

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

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.

  • -12

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.

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