site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   31816 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 23, 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.

You can just post the archive link for people who don't want to pay. I don't know why more news sites haven't cracked down on it yet, but it's a trivially easy way to pirate most articles still.

I don't see what's particularly interesting about the article. The family is obviously directly profiting from the presidency, and here Eric gives non-arguments that the family would be richer if it didn't get into politics (perhaps true, but not a germane rebuttal). As for the "political dynasty" stuff, what makes Trumpism so unique is the cultism, and that almost certainly dies with Donald. Maybe Eric could scratch out a future riding on daddy's coattails like a populist version of Jeb Bush, but people like JD Vance and even still Ron Desantis are more well positioned to lead that movement.

Maybe Eric could scratch out a future riding on daddy's coattails like a populist version of Jeb Bush, but people like JD Vance and even still Ron Desantis are more well positioned to lead that movement.

The more interesting question to me is: would Eric or Don Jr. draw enough attention to fatally weaken another MAGA candidate and throw the race into confusion? Trumpism has always had multiple facets: some people like him because he's a fighter who wins for traditional conservative causes like reducing the size of government or abortion issues, others like him as an explicit repudiation of the prior GOP consensus on issues like foreign intervention and tariffs, still others just like Trump personally as a celebrity showman.

A TrumpSon run would almost certainly capture significant quantities of credibility on the third leg, and probably carry more credibility on the particular mix of traditional Republican policies and MAGA policies than most older line GOP candidates like Rubio or Desantis. A Trumpson run would also be ruinous to Vance, as it would rob Vance of the title of Heir.

Even if neither Eric nor Don Jr. can win, and I don't particularly think they can as they haven't thus far shown the kind of talent that would get them over the finish line, their run could still be important. Which is why they're NEVER going to say they aren't running: the threat of entering the race, even if only for a quixotic Connor Roy spoiler run, is leverage. And the Trump's are old-school moguls, they never let go of leverage*. So whether they actually plan to run or not, they'll hang the threat of a run over Vance and Desantis, and demand loyalty and service in exchange.

*I personally remain convinced that Trump's entire 2020 election theft bit was a clash of worldviews. In real estate, when you have a claim, even a weak claim, it represents leverage, and you can get your counterparty to negotiate and give you something for it. You never let it lapse for nothing. Trump thought he could cash out the vague election theft allegations for something from Biden's handlers; Biden's handlers don't think that way and wanted Trump gone so they weren't in the mood to play. In his efforts to hang onto the bit, Trump lost control of it, and wound up with a lot of things happening that did not benefit him at all.

would Eric or Don Jr. draw enough attention to fatally weaken another MAGA candidate and throw the race into confusion?

Did Jeb! work to weaken the Republican alternatives to Trump, by which I mean had he not been in the race, would the support and party machinery have gone to someone else (maybe Ted Cruz) who would have been stronger and therefore successfully challenged Trump, or was it Trump's moment and the rest of them were fatally flawed as being identifiably part of the Establishment? (Do we really want the world where there was a President Cruz instead?)

I don't think Jeb's support, such as it was, mattered that much in the end - he had four pledged delegates to Cruz' five hundred and fifty-one, so clearly the support wasn't behind him despite being a Bush. I think the same would be true for Eric or Don Jr., they just wouldn't have enough recognition of their own to do any real damage as splitting a MAGA vote. I think anybody wanting to vote for deSantis or Vance (if they go in 2028) would be deterred by "vote for Eric Trump instead".

A TrumpSon run would almost certainly capture significant quantities of credibility on the third leg

Unlikely; I've seen no evidence that any of Trump's kids possess his humor or stage presence - major reasons he did so well.

some people like him because he's a fighter who wins for traditional conservative causes like reducing the size of government

??????

Trump hasn't significantly reduced the size of the government, and even explicitly refuses to touch the largest parts of it (bloated elder care in the form of Social Security and Medicare).

I vaguely agree with everything else you said in your post, and thought it was a bit more interesting and insightful than the article the OP posted.

In real estate, when you have a claim, even a weak claim, it represents leverage, and you can get your counterparty to negotiate and give you something for it. You never let it lapse for nothing.

This is somehow the most logical explanation I've heard for 2020, and I hadn't heard of it before.

Same! It's making me think.

For instance - I wonder what he could've gotten that would've appeased him?

As for the "political dynasty" stuff, what makes Trumpism so unique is the cultism

At this point this can only be called projection. Half of his base had their fingers on the trigger in case he listened to the neoccons, and went to war with Iran.

Compare and contrast to refusing to answer basic questions like "what is a woman?" for fear of how the rest of the cult will react.

What? MAGA was largely against attacking Iran, right up until Trump did so, then they became very much in favor.

I don't know what your second paragraph is in reference to.

MAGA is/was strongly opposed to sending troops to Iran, and is broadly in favor of how things actually played out. There is no contradiction there.

MAGA was against intervention broadly. I don't think I heard a single MAGA aligned person say "boots on the ground are my specific redline" beforehand.

What MAGA was/is against is yet more on-going foreign entanglements consuming blood and treasure for little gain. See ou (the US's recent experience in) Afgahnistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Gaza, Et Al.

A quick surgical strike followed almost immediately by a negotiated peace is pretty much the exact opposite of an on-going entanglement.

I know what I saw on my timeline. And Trump didn't keep his intervention limited because everybody was so supportive of it.

I don't know what your second paragraph is in reference to

Really? You never ever heard any public official or intellectual from a particular political side being evasive on the question?

Nope, Trump did what neocons failed to accomplish during any previous GOP administration over the last 40 years, namely direct, massive US air strikes on the Iranian nuclear program, and he did it over the wishes of isolationists like Carlson and to the approval of the great majority of his base. Framing this as a win for principled anti-intervention rightists is ridiculous.

And Trump didn't keep his intervention limited because everybody was so supportive of it.

Ground invasion of Iran is impossible and externally-forced regime change is impossible without ground invasion. Trump picked the most maximalist neocon option realistically possible, just like when he had Soleimani assassinated over the suggestions of the DoD and most of his own senior advisors.

Framing this as a win for principled anti-intervention rightists is ridiculous.

Who said anything about a "win for principled anti-intervention"? They wanted to do much more than this, but didn't.

Ground invasion of Iran is impossible and externally-forced regime change is impossible without ground invasion.

I'm sure all these calls for regime change were just kayfabe, as were Israeli attempts to break the cease fire.

The Israelis are delusional and wrong about regime change. It’s strange that critics of Israel seem to be so heavily invested in Mossad’s infallibility (even ‘October 7th was allowed to happen’ etc). The only way regime change happens in Iran is if the Tehran middle class get fed up enough to make it happen. That will be independent from Israel.

The Israelis are delusional and wrong about regime change. It’s strange that critics of Israel seem to be so heavily invested in Mossad’s infallibility

Well, between those pager bombings, and the precision of the recent strikes that they're bragging about, few people are putting Mossad's competence in doubt. It's their good faith that people are doubting, and this is the case here as well. I don't think they're delusional, I think they know full well regime change without ground troops is impossible, but they're trying to lure the US to put said boots on said ground via the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

As for the "political dynasty" stuff, what makes Trumpism so unique is the cultism,

The cultism, indeed. Imagine thinking a President was practically the Second Coming, and deifying him in art, or admitting that you wept with joy when he was elected. That'd be crazy.

Well, okay, so that was Obama, not Trump, but still. Pretty crazy! Or do you perhaps mean something different by 'cultism'?

The cult of personality around Obama didn't hold a candle to Trump's. Obama was regularly attacked from both the left and right within his own party. You could be a Democrat in good standing and also an Obama critic. Meanwhile, in Trump's GOP absolute fealty is the bare minimum. Criticism, where it exists, is either of the 50 Stalins variety or carefully suggesting that perhaps the Tsar is being poorly advised.

What you say here is directly opposite to what I've observed in my own life throughout both presidencies. Trump faces significant more pushback than Obama ever did. I'm unsure how to reconcile this -- one of us is simply wrong in our understanding of reality, there's no other way around it. And I don't think it's me.

If pushback against Trump is so widespread, it should be trivial to demonstrate. Where are the high profile Republicans standing in opposition to Trump? Where is this significant pushback?

one of us is simply wrong in our understanding of reality, there's no other way around it. And I don't think it's me.

Look, I don't know you. I can't speak to your personal experience. All I can observe is that on a national level, every prominent Republican who has stood up to Trump has either been whipped into line or is effectively no longer part of the American conservative coalition. On a personal level, I can observe that family members who were literally Republican party officers for decades were chased out of the party for not being sufficiently deferential to Trumpist conspiracy theories.

The cult of personality around Obama didn't hold a candle to Trump's.

Thrills up the leg? The Light Worker? The oceans stopped rising?

Granted, all that was his first term, the gloss had worn off by the time the second one came around.

The God-Emperor stuff was both funny and a satire by someone not a fan of Trump, it was taken up ironically because hell, yeah it was funny and cool at the same time.

Not to mention having the instincts that let him react like this in the immediate wake of the assassination attempt, leading to what you have to admit is an iconic image.

The oceans stopped rising?

...one of your examples of a cult of personality around Obama is a misphrased version of his own speech?

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless.

This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

This was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

He's exhorting the troops ('if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it'), and he's not even saying that the oceans stopped rising but that the rise begins to slow.

Meanwhile, a considerable share of American Protestants believe(d) that Trump is anointed by God to be the President, and the share is not insignificant even if there's a comparison question regarding whether all Presidents are anointed by God.

The God-Emperor stuff was both funny and a satire by someone not a fan of Trump, it was taken up ironically because hell, yeah it was funny and cool at the same time.

I'm not sure what the satire part is in reference to. Probably the first memes I saw about Trump (his campaign didn't instantly take off in the online crowd so it ook a bit of time for them to start accumulating in places where I'd spot them) were God-Emperor memes, presented in a ha-ha-only-serious tone.

I think if, in your very own acceptance speech, you are already writing your place in the history books of tomorrow about future generations recognising the great job you did, that counts as "establishing a cult of personality".

I think a cult of personality is when a statesman is treated not merely as a statesman who did a great job, but an exceptional, well, personality. It's when sycophants say "Stalin raised this country from its knees (and no one else could)", not "we raised this country from its knees under Stalin (he was a great help)".

And this applies to both Obama and Trump, although Obama played more in keeping with the mos maiorum and Trump is just straightup the great MAGA king.

Not even close. If the argument was merely "some people really like Trump" vs "some people really liked Obama", sure, but it's not. It is that you cannot criticize Trump and be a member of the GOP in good standing. Musk tried and very rapidly learned that if you tried to break ranks you were going to be whipped into line.

There's no Obama equivalent to cabinet secretaries beginning meetings by verbally fellating Trump. The degree of personal devotion demand and received by Trump from his followers is pretty much without parallel.

The God-Emperor stuff was both funny and a satire by someone not a fan of Trump

If you mean literal GEoM memes, perhaps yes. If you mean artwork where Trump is portrayed as a heroic and/or borderline deific figure (often in comical contrast to his actual appearance), no. Maybe it was started by some internet troll, but his base picked it up and ran with it.

Where was there criticism of Obama from Democrats that was not of the 50 Stalins variety?

From the right of the party and from the left of the party. (Of course Sanders is technically not a Democrat, but in practice, he was and is.)

Manchin is actually quoted as saying he's doing this "not as a Democrat", and I think this counts as saying that the Tsar is poorly advised:

Manchin said he is a proud Democrat, having been raised with the values of “always reaching out, trying to help others have a better quality of life and help themselves” and taking care of those who cannot help themselves.

But he said sometimes his party’s priorities in Washington are “out of balance with … how we do business in West Virginia.”

Sanders is claiming that Obama isn't left wing enough, which is a 50 Stalins criticism. And it's not actually hard to find conservatives criticizing Trump.

Sanders is claiming that Obama isn't left wing enough, which is a 50 Stalins criticism

This is very silly. On this basis it is impossible for a left-winger to give anything but 50 Stalins criticism to those on the centre-left. Obviously Sanders will claim Obama isn't left-wing enough, because he's... to his left.

Scott originally gave as an example "There isn’t enough Stalinism in this country!" There isn't enough leftism is an obvious extension.

Not really because, as well as the things Stefferi points out, Stalinism is a much narrower concept than 'leftism'. When someone asks for 50 Stalins, the whole point is that they're not actually asking Stalin to do anything different, it's just theatrical non-criticism - if there is real criticism it is directed at the rest of society for failing carry forward Stalinism with sufficient zeal. When Bernie criticises Obama, he is asking him to be more (or at all) leftist, but in ways that actually demands he changes central elements of his policy and ideology.

Setting aside the whole sustainability of the idea that critiques from some particular viewpoint are somehow invalid because that viewpoint is different from yourself (and it is really a question of perspective - a Communist who attacks Obama for being a neoliberal could claim that the Tea Party types were just demanding Obama to be even more neoliberal than he actually was): no, the example is "There aren't enough Stalins".

Is this a meaningful distinction? It is in this case, since we're specifically talking about cults of personality. If we're talking about parties or ideologies, sure, I could see the point, but we're talking about specific personalities, and in this case a political cult of personality really generally demands complete fealty to the personality, independent of political ideologies. Attacking a personality from the "further same side" is the same as attacking them from the "opposite side" since both are evidence of disloyalty, "further same side" probably even more so. Again, Stalin vis-a-vis Bukharin and Trotsky is a good example.

Another Stalin-related example of how political cults of personality work is a demand that you follow the personality's line even if they make complete u-turns. When Yezhov is Stalin's guy, you agree he's a good Communist; when Stalin gets rid of Yezhov, you agree he was a traitor all along and edit him out of photos. When Stalin declares that Hitler is the greatest threat to Soviet Union there is, you attack Hitler; when Stalin declares that Hitler is OK now and the Western imperialists are the true treat, you change your line instantly and forget your attacks on Hitler even if you're Jewish yourself; when Hitler attacks Soviet Union and Soviet Union allies with the West, you change your line about Western warmongering in the middle of the speech if needed. And so on.

Does this apply to Obama and Trump? I can't think of good examples regarding Obama - Obama changed his line from anti-SSM to pro, but most of his partisans had probably already made the switch already. On the other hand, there just was a case of Trump's actions changing the views of at least a great number of his supporters instantly; the bombing or Iranian nuclear sites, making the GOP support for such strike go from 47% to 77%, meaning that there is at least a large number of Republicans willing to change their stance to Trump's instantaneously.

More comments

Manchin is actually quoted as saying he's doing this "not as a Democrat".

So? He's still a Democrat.

Sanders is claiming that Obama isn't left wing enough, which is a 50 Stalins criticism.

That's not what 50 Stalins means. As it was originally used, it was "Okay, back up. Suppose you went back to Stalinist Russia and you said “You know, people just don’t respect Comrade Stalin enough. There isn’t enough Stalinism in this country! I say we need two Stalins! No, fifty Stalins!”"

It's supposed to be a completely facile pseudocriticism, not an actual criticism that is simply coming from a different direction than where you yourself are coming from. If we loop back to actual Stalin, it was just as dangerous to attack him from the left (like Trotsky did) as from the right (like Bukharin did), originally even considerably moreso. The only way to stay say would have been not to attack Stalin at all but "attack the system" while praising Stalin, like the 50 Stalins example guy does.

And it's not actually hard to find conservatives criticizing Trump.

This is someone obscure enough that I have never heard of them before you linked this, and the whole piece starts with him taling about how his criticisms of Trump get him constantly attacked by dozens of readers. Not a particularly worthy example, this.

So? He's still a Democrat

Not a normal and mainstream one. He was a well known and prominent 'blue dogger', which exempts him from the usual rules around democrats. It could mean many things but 'moderate republican who steals more' is a reasonable and common formulation.

Can you show non-blue dog democrats criticizing Obama without careful phrasing?

It's supposed to be a completely facile pseudocriticism

I understand a 50 Stalins criticism to be that someone's positions aren't extreme enough and he should lean into them even more. Claiming that a Democrat is not left-wing enough would be a 50 Stalins criticism. (And likewise, something like "Trump isn't doing enough to stop illegal immigration" would be a 50 Stalins criticism of Trump.)

It's true that it would be dangerous to do this to actual Stalin, but that's not how the metaphor works.

This is someone obscure enough that I have never heard of them before you linked this,

It was the first one I found by googling that sounded good enough.

I understand a 50 Stalins criticism to be that someone's positions aren't extreme enough and he should lean into them even more

If that were true then Stalin would be a desperately confusing example to use for the reasons @Stefferi points out.

It was the first one I found by googling that sounded good enough.

Fine but the two are obviously not equivalent. Manchin was a sitting Senator and former state governor. 'Dace Potas' is a journalist who is two years out of college whose various bios tout him as a writer for such pillars of journalism as USA Today and something called 'The College Fix'.

To name a few:

  • Pushback from conservative Democrats on ACA. Nowadays, it's popular to blame the GOP for the ACA being the watered down version that finally passed, but it faced significant opposition from conservative Democratic senators (most notoriously Lieberman, but he took a lot of the heat for a larger body of centrist Dems).
  • Left-wing critiques of Obama foreign policy (and before you suggest it, no, this is not '50 Stalins' criticism), especially re: drone strikes
  • The Trans-Pacific Partnership was opposed by both progressive Democrats and more traditional labor Dems
  • Joe Manchin openly set himself up in opposition to Obama's policies, especially on the environmental front.

Among other things, it bears pointing out that there was no republican support for ACA, and no republican support was expected. The final version was a compromise between mainstream democrats and blue doggers, not between republicans and democrats.

Imagine thinking a President was practically the Second Coming

The QAnon stuff goes here.

and deifying him in art

...and the "God-Emperor" memes, among others, go here.

The QAnon stuff goes here.

Yes, QAnon is a similar sort of crazy.

...and the "God-Emperor" memes, among others, go here.

The difference is irony, though I understand a third party might not believe this. The worship of Obama was sincere in a way Trump never has been. Trump is a creature of social media and deeply performative displays.

Anybody who refers to Trump as God Emperor is putting on a trollish performance. Maybe they do support Trump across the board, or maybe they're more mixed, but it is not to be taken as sincerely held belief. It is said specifically for other people to hear and see, prompting either a high five or a sour facial expression to be mocked. One should also consider its usage in our ironic/post-ironic/sincere-but-not-really discourse.

I refer to him as God Emperor with some regularity, and I am nether religious nor an imperialist. This wasn't a good gotcha even when Kimmel did it. "Oh wow, did you see this photoshop of Trump on a golden chariot ascending to heaven wearing glowing laurels and weilding the Ancient Sword of Prophecy? How insane! Yikes".

I don't think the Left got this excessive with their Obama worship, but I think that's because it WAS taken more seriously. You don't want it to seem like a big joke. With Trump, just putting his face anywhere out of context feels like a punchline on its own. "Trump is watching you poop".

Lot's of people unironically treat Trump as a king/emperor. He's the American Marius and everyone knows he represents a break in the system, personalizing power into more personalistic arrangements.

Now which of his associates will turn Sulla?

I believe that most people don’t actually think of Trump as a god emperor, but do be wary - every insane position on the left also started with “no one taking it seriously” (usually through being “just on tumblr” or “just some kids on campus”). Some people are definitely taking it too seriously, even accounting for the lizard man principle.

All large political movements have some amount of cultists, but it's a matter of degrees. Biden had almost no cultists. Obama had some cultists especially amongst blacks. But for Trump the cultists are very mainstream. That's how you end up with situations like this, or this, or blatant hypocrites like Catturd becoming leading figures of the movement.

That you think Obama's cult was in blacks, and not the whites who fetishized him, suggests to me we fundamentally don't see the same world. Obama's cult was significantly larger and more mainstream than anything of Trump's. What are you even suggesting with Catturd as a leading figure? He posts on Twitter. He doesn't make any kind of decisions or influence any thought, he's just an aggregator of outrage.

Obama might have had a broader left cult during the election and shortly thereafter, but there was a ton of disillusionment afterwards with the left thinking he was too moderate. This disillusionment was a nontrivial part of why wokeness started gaining steam. Blacks broadly stayed with him the entire time, while proto-woke white leftists felt betrayed pretty quickly.

"Catturd posts on Twitter" is a non-argument. Joe Rogan just posts podcasts. Greta Thunberg just does publicity stunts. Yet we keep hearing about all of these people because they're important for one reason or another. I didn't claim Catturd was a politician himself, but he undoubtedly has influence on the broader base, which trickles up to those in power through various means.

This depends on your definition of mainstream.

If Trump declared elections suspended tomorrow and proclaimed himself first emperor of America, he would have more supporters than Obama trying to run for a third term, and lots of his opponents would object less. But CNN would run one with the headline 'fascism is here- Jews bewarned' and the other with the headline 'respected elder statesman reenters the ring'.

If Trump declared elections suspended tomorrow and proclaimed himself first emperor of America, he would have more supporters than Obama trying to run for a third term, and lots of his opponents would object less.

I'm not convinced this is true. I think Obama would absolutely cinch the vote if he ran for a third term, especially given the other options Democrats have to choose from.

Agreed on the headlines, though. Obama had significantly more earnest and intense elite buy in than Trump. They loved Obama as much as they hate the orange man.

This is a bizarre statement to me, Trump's cultists are not "mainstream" in any meaning of the word.

I'm old enough to remember the dozens of covers of actual mainstream newspapers and magazines with pictures of Obama with the Presidential seal positioned just so behind his head to give the appearance of a halo.

Do I need to provide links to the "Lightworker" articles or the newsweek "god of all things" Shiva cover? This is either absurd revisionism or you're very young.

Trump's cultists are mainstream within the Republican party. I think you're interpreting "mainstream" as in "mainstream media" or something like that, which wasn't what I meant.

I think it’s the decline of social trust coupled with the decline of religion. People no longer have the sort of bedrock idea that things are “true and right”. They think that society is full of cheats and liars, that everyone is lying to them, that the political class either doesn’t care about them or hates them, that there’s no person or group out there that actually cares about the country, and that essentially you can’t fully trust anyone or any institution. You also don’t have religion in an organized sense. You might vaguely believe, but it’s not a bulwark of truth where you can trust that you have it right.

In that situation a person who promises to fucking fix it is a relief. It’s how humans evolved. And whether or not it works, humans evolved to hand power to a guy who promises he can and will fix it. Even if you don’t agree with him, it’s a relief to finally put down th3 burden of having to worry about costs going up, crime, corruption, housing crisis, and wars. Trump or Obama have it, go back to grilling and watching baseball and living life.

Yes, the government's total inability to meaningfully make life better anymore has cratered faith in every institution across the board. Too many neutral bodies captured by one tribe, too much bad faith, too much accumulated ill will.

Same reason everyone wants fighters now, and why any political compromise is a death sentence to one's popularity. Everyone is collectively sick of the problems being compromised on, and the solutions never coming.

In part, the other part is social media and the 24 hour news cycle effectively preventing compromise. The government used to be much much less transparent, in large part because whatever news there was traveled slowly enough and was infrequent enough that by the time the public found out about something, chances were pretty good that the deals had been worked out in the back rooms of congress before you could find out about them. In the 21st century, that’s impossible— the media is broadcasting everything in near real time with social media encouraging everyone to opine, get mad, and call the switchboard to demand that the only acceptable way forward is to do exactly what we want you to do.

How do you solve real problems when you’re on Big Brother 24 hours a day?

It's the transparency that ruins it, not the news. If government was impenetrable and its records masked instead of openly presented, compromise could still happen.

I mean demand for news by 24 hour cable news stations and the people who watch them would create the transparency because if the workings of government are not disclosed they’d dig until the information that they need to keep the station on air.

Yes, the government's total inability to meaningfully make life better anymore has cratered faith in every institution across the board.

The reasons are far beyond just blaming the government. There's the whole Meaning Crisis, death of God aspect as well.

When Obama was elected I met an older white woman who wept tears of joy and said he'd come to do the work of Christ.

I'm sure there's old people who wept for Trump, too, but Obama's religious significance was a core part of his campaign and presidencies; the left worshiped him.

Any claims of MAGA "cultism" fall on deaf ears without a good explanation for why MAGA -- who routinely argue with Trump, even publicly -- are cultists without addressing the Obama elephant in the room.

Even Biden, to a lesser extent, but mostly due to relation to Obama as VP.

the left worshiped him.

Maybe for a short while but left-wing opinion turned cool on Obama surprisingly quickly, and the 'anti-imperialist' Chomskyite left never liked him. As early as 2009 not-exactly-radical-lefist Bill Maher said that:

Barack Obama is not a socialist -- he’s not even a liberal....this country needs a left wing. It doesn’t have it, and part of the reason is the media... I don’t know if this administration has really caught up to the idea that Americans are a lot more liberal, perhaps, than we think they are- or they think they are

More importantly, I think the election denial/J6 clearly puts MAGA a class apart from any other modern American political movement in terms of cultishness.

Maybe for a short while but left-wing opinion turned cool on Obama surprisingly quickly, and the 'anti-imperialist' Chomskyite left never liked him. As early as 2009 not-exactly-radical-lefist Bill Maher said that:

No, it endured his entire Presidency, and even beyond it. While there's a slice of the left that dislikes Obama, it's not at all mainstream opinion.

More importantly, I think the election denial/J6 clearly puts MAGA a class apart from any other modern American political movement in terms of cultishness.

Definitely not. Challenging elections is simply what one does in such a competitive system -- there are entire Reddit communities devoted to conspiracies about 2024, you know. And J6 wasn't even the worst mostly peaceful protest at the Capital, let alone remarkable at all compared to the Burn, Loot, & Murder riots. Indeed, J6 was actually uniquely acceptable compared to other protests, given it actually directed itself against the ruling elites rather than terrorize innocent, unrelated people in cities across the country.

it's not at all mainstream opinion

Being very critical of Obama wasn't mainstream among Democrats, but obviously being critical of your own sitting President is generally unheard of these days. How many mainstream Republicans criticised GWB? Left and right factions of the Democrats criticised Obama to what I would consider a normal degree for a sitting President - there were Blue dogs who attacked him semi-regularly and some progressives who did the same.

That most obvious bellwether of mainstream liberal opinion, the New York Times wrote an endorsement for re-election in 2012 that was very enthusiastic, yes, but very conventional and offered such qualifications as

We have criticized individual policy choices that Mr. Obama has made over the last four years, and have been impatient with his unwillingness to throw himself into the political fight

Elsewhere, the NYT editorial board was sharply critical of Obama on all sorts of issues all the time. There are too many to list here but here are a few from various points in his Presidency:

Deepwater Horizon:

But a year and a half into this presidency, the contemplative nature that was so appealing in a candidate can seem indecisive in a president. His promise of bipartisanship seems naïve. His inclination to hold back, then ride to the rescue, has sometimes made problems worse.

It certainly should not have taken days for Mr. Obama to get publicly involved in the oil spill, or even longer for his administration to start putting the heat on BP for its inadequate response and failure to inform the public about the size of the spill. (Each day, it seems, brings new revelations about the scope of the disaster.) It took too long for Mr. Obama to say that the Coast Guard and not BP was in charge of operations in the gulf and it’s still not clear that is true.

He should not have hesitated to suspend the expanded oil drilling program and he should have moved a lot faster to begin political and criminal investigations of the spill. If BP was withholding information, failing to cooperate or not providing the ships needed to process the oil now flowing to the surface, he should have told the American people and the world

Libya:

Mr. Obama made the wrong choice, trying to evade his responsibility under the 1973 War Powers Act to seek Congressional authorization within 60 days of introducing armed forces into "hostilities" -- or terminate the operation. The White House claimed that the Pentagon's limited operations are not the sort of "hostilities" covered by the act. It is not credible.

NSA:

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

2011 Budget:

What Mr. Obama’s budget is most definitely not is a blueprint for dealing with the real long-term problems that feed the budget deficit: rising health care costs, an aging population and a refusal by lawmakers to face the inescapable need to raise taxes at some point. Rather, it defers those critical issues

Privacy Bill:

The draft bill released by the White House on Friday only vaguely reflects those ideas and is riddled with loopholes. It seems tailored to benefit Internet firms like Google and Facebook and little-known data brokers like Acxiom that have amassed detailed profiles of individuals. For good reason, many privacy groups and some Democratic lawmakers have criticized the draft.

there are entire Reddit communities devoted to conspiracies about 2024, you know

I can't quite tell if you're joking. On the one hand, we have the sitting President of the United States alleging that millions of votes were cast fraudulently. On the other, we have "Reddit communities". I wonder, might there be a slight asymmetry between these two things?

Indeed, J6 was actually uniquely acceptable compared to other protests, given it actually directed itself against the ruling elites

This is such a strange rendering of the riot in abstract terms. Indeed it was directed against ruling elites, but unfortunately in this case those elites were democratically elected representatives of the people certifying a fair election, and the rioters were targeting them because the process had failed their cult leader. Good job for those J6ers that the same election riggers who had the power to magically turn the result against Trump didn't show up for 2024 (or 2016), I suppose. Perhaps they overslept.

Not a one of those criticisms of Obama is more severe than criticism I see of Trump.

I can't quite tell if you're joking. On the one hand, we have the sitting President of the United States alleging that millions of votes were cast fraudulently. On the other, we have "Reddit communities". I wonder, might there be a slight asymmetry between these two things?

No, though feel free to look back on Russiagate if you want similar elite conspiracies. There are plenty of Democrats decrying the election, just like with Gore, just like with the next election they'll lose, too. The only reason no Democrat President is pushing this is that there's no Democrat President, period.

This is such a strange rendering of the riot in abstract terms. Indeed it was directed against ruling elites, but unfortunately in this case those elites were democratically elected representatives of the people certifying a fair election, and the rioters were targeting them because the process had failed their cult leader.

And Trump is the democratically elected representative of the country, yet people still rioted against him -- only the left destroyed innocent people's property, lashing out in blind rage at the fact their cult lost. The government is not more sacred than the people it rules. We are citizens, not subjects, and not lessers.

Good job for those J6ers that the same election riggers who had the power to magically turn the result against Trump didn't show up for 2024 (or 2016), I suppose. Perhaps they overslept.

The ability to rig an election does not mean a guarantee of success; elections have many moving parts. This is why it took 2020, and sweeping, unprecedented changes to the voting process, to properly fortify the election.

And of course, once that context couldn't be repeated, Trump won again. Fortifying an election, and loudly bragging about it, makes it easier to counter the second time around. The Trump campaign was much more aggressive this time around, to their success.

Not a one of those criticisms of Obama is more severe than criticism I see of Trump.

From a like source? The NYT is literally the archetypal Obama-ite left-liberal internationalist publication. If anyone should show him unquestioning support, it would be them. The equivalent would be equal criticism coming from, say, Newsmax or Breitbart.

though feel free to look back on Russiagate if you want similar elite conspiracies. There are plenty of Democrats decrying the election, just like with Gore, just like with the next election they'll lose

These are completely different. With Russigate, no-one of any significance was suggesting that there was anything compromised about the voting process itself, which obviously crosses into very new and dangerous territory. Same with Gore - there was no suggestion of fraudulent malfeasance, the dispute being about recount boundaries and timings etc. Plus, luckily, we have a like-for-like way of comparing these different instances. How did the losing party react in the days and weeks after it became clear they would not win?

Hillary:

Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country... We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.

Gore:

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends... And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others: it's time for me to go.

Trump (in a speech longer after the election than Gore):

They cheated and they rigged our presidential election, but we will still win it. We will still win it. We'll still win it. And they're going to try and rig this election too. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. No, we continue to fight. We've had some great moments. We just need somebody with courage to do what they have to do because everyone knows it's wrong... there's no way this could have happened other than the obvious cheating or a rigged election. There's no way it could have happened

There is just no comparison and it's blindingly obvious.

The only reason no Democrat President is pushing this is that there's no Democrat President, period.

No mainstream Democrat (as in a sitting Senator o/e) ever cast any doubt on the integrity of the voting counting process in 2024. Next.

The government is not more sacred than the people it rules. We are citizens, not subjects, and not lessers.

Obviously I don't disagree. But the J6 riots were different because they attacked the very legitimacy of the democratic process - their aim was to, by force, overturn the result of a democratic election and install a new leader. That was and is unique, as was the extent to which they were indulged and encouraged by Trump.

And of course, once that context couldn't be repeated, Trump won again. Fortifying an election, and loudly bragging about it, makes it easier to counter the second time around. The Trump campaign was much more aggressive this time around, to their success.

Cult mindset. Luckily I'm well adjusted and can believe that sometimes Trump wins fair elections and sometimes he loses them. Your mindset literally cannot comprehend the world in which a majority of voters simply voted against Trump in one election. It's also completely unfalsifiable, another cult warning sign. When he loses, it was rigged. When he wins, he fought back against the rigging.

More comments

I definitely know a few hard leftists/socialists who were quick to go cold on him as well. But in general Dem normie-sphere, he was a gold standard POTUS who reigned without controversy, and his photos were posted wistfully in the Age of Trump.

I sense that too has been fading, though. Although I think that's more due to aging out of relevancy than a reappraisal of the man and his admin.

You could say they're not the real Left, but they're the one that matters.

And as a big Obama supporter for both his terms... yeah, there was a 'culty' (generously described as enamored) vibe going on. Even the Daily Show poked fun at this, with John Oliver even going to the DNC in 08 and getting little more than 'Obama will fix everything' from the crowd attendees.

Oh yeah, edited to be clear I meant Obama.

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