site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   32234 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.

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?

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