site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   27011 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.

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.

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.

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