site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   23267 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 9, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thank you so much for finding the link, favorited! Man, I know Alone is super cynical (maybe from all the rum) but I can't help but love his devastating writing style:

Don't say that taxes needed to be higher because it was never about funding it, it was always about temporarily buying their apathy. Truth be told, it stayed solvent longer than it was supposed to-- one of the benefits of having a reserve currency, aka a private meth lab. But you knew that, didn't you? Temporary measures, just like a psychiatry that is for the "management of acute symptoms"-- or are you going to tell me you expect/want it to look like this in 30 years? Then why is it like this now?

And so this is the terrible, awful truth of it all: we created the system only for us, and will last for as long, but only as long, as we are alive, and that was as far as anyone ever thought it out. That means that any kids under 10, rich and poor, will be left to make do with rubble-- on purpose. That's what they will inherit from the Dumbest Generation Of Narcissists In The History of The World, who say with not the least bit of irony, "may as well spend it because you can't take it with you!" No kidding. You've created a gigantic Ponzi scheme which is not just morally sketchy but downright mean to your kids, but what do you care: you'll be dead.

He’s not cynical, not exactly, or possibly just in a more original sense of the word. Obviously he’s got a biting tongue, and is quite funny and engaging, but his style goes further than that. He smoothly switches registers from that sharp humor to dispassionate but engaged explanation to quiet compassion to thundering moral imperatives. And at the heart of it, the beating heart that gives the writing meaning and purchase, is a sincere and rich if off-beat and cantankerous sense of what it means to be human, and a good one at that. He believes, and believes so strongly that those who read him often can’t help but to believe as well. It is, in my opinion, the core characteristic of the best artists (whatever the medium). Weak artists communicate their raw skill, or the popular views of the day, or self-interested navel-gazing, or shallow platitudes (sometimes positive, often negative). Great artists have a perception of the world, an almost indescribable richness of essence, which they strive to share. They see the clean and the corrupt, the fractures in the simple and uncomplicated views, and try to communicate what they see. And especially they love the goodness of it, which impels them to expression, however imperfect. I find that this imperfection is actually the hallmark of great art, a certain roughness around the edges, a strange and stilted section here or there, the part of a novel or movie that drags on a little long, a corner of a painting that is not perfectly lovely, an awkward sidebar in a thesis: this is the uncomfortable, indescribable real poking through. It is not necessarily in full contribution to “the point” or what have you, but it is necessary nonetheless. And Alone, for my money, is one of these serious artists, probably the only real and powerful thinker I’ve read in the 21st century. There are some pretty acceptable second-rate writers, who are quite good for the time, and perhaps Alone will wind up being too focused on contemporary issues to be particularly worth remembering in a historical sense. But my sense is that he stands with the best.

I don’t see nihilism in what he’s talking about. What he’s talking about is how the systems in the modern West actually work, and exactly how they’re pretty much the same as the structures that have always existed and probably always will. SSDI like almost all welfare has never been aimed at tge comfort or betterment of tge people that receive it. It’s a pass through so they can afford to buy consumer goods. Which is why they have to use them to buy things or pay rent to a private individual. Government cheese and public housing and public clinics staffed by government hired doctors don’t get the money to the producers as fast. And most welfare systems cut people off the minute they have any assets. If you have money in the bank, you’re going to lose benefits rather quickly. It’s meant as pacification of the poor and a pass-through handout to business interests.

I see the same in his talking about the 2008 shutdown. He’s talking about the news and how it’s designed to tell you what you already believe, to create drama instead of solutions, and to basically prevent you from thinking about the issues. And the entire point is that it keeps you from understanding what is going on. Which is control. It wants you to feel involved and feel like you’re important enough to be in the seat of power. It’s sophisticated ego-stroking, and TBH it’s very seductive as ego-stroking to pretend that it’s of earth-shaking importance that you, personally are informed by the best sources, are engaged at all times, and that it’s urgent that you, yes, you are intimately and personally involved. TBH, I think in general the reverse is true, and that most of the problems in America would be solved if fewer people cared about politics, especially since the vast majority (on both sides BTW) are using politics as a substitute for religion and in some cases personality.

Yes absolutely! It's not pure cynical nihilism, he pairs a lot of intelligence with someone who clearly cares about society and wants the best for us. I love the way you put this, he definitely has a strong belief in what he's writing about.

Have you read Sadly, Porn? Haven't been able to start given what I've heard myself ahaha.

It’s his best work.

I have read Sadly, Porn. The book is composed of meandering parables. They revolve around a central argument reiterated repeatedly in riddle form but never stated explicitly. Footnotes make up 50% of the book's total word count. Each footnote is an essay, mostly book reviews and movie reviews. I would maybe recommend reading the footnote essays for starters and circling back to reading main text of the book afterwards.

What is the main argument?

It's less about an argument in the logos sense than it is about the experience of reading it. It's a unique exercise in rhetoric.

The general thrust is similar to his blog but with a focus on relationships. It centers around themes of self-deception, narcissism, performative virtue, revealed preference, cowardice, selfishness, and ultimately, dereliction of duty and the failure to be a good person. A book of cynicism in diametric opposition to nihilism.

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