site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   32995 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 7, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Your rules, applied fairly."

I don't think we should take them seriously. I think they should be tarred and feathered and expelled along with anyone that put up "it's okay to be white" posters. Trolls should be treated like trolls across the board, not given a scholarship on one side and treated like dogs on the other.

In principle, I agree, though I think tarring and feathering and deportation is a little extreme...

That said, I absolutely believe #killallmen posters are almost entirely performative, whereas Joo-posters are not.

deportation

The context wasn't perfectly clear but I meant expelled from college, not from the country. IOTBW posters were mostly a college phenomenon, and while #killallmen isn't limited to colleges, I'm sure it's as common there as anywhere.

I like to think I could stand on principle enough that they don't deserve to be fully depersoned, just face the same consequences as equivalently-hateful people on the other side.

I do not share the interest in drawing a performative/satire/etc distinction, since such judgements are themselves so often biased. One can imagine the Russell conjugations there; one woman's satire is another man's violent manifesto, and so on.

It’s performative in that the #killallmen posters probably haven’t killen any men, but the disgust/hatred each group has for its target demographic is probably quite similar.

That said, I absolutely believe #killallmen posters are almost entirely performative, whereas Joo-posters are not.

I'm not so sure of this. Men are significantly more likely to be victims of homicide than women, particularly when accused of victimizing a woman. I think there's a very good argument to be made that use of #killallmen is at the very least intentionally reinforcing that particular inequality to hang a sword of Damocles over men in an effort to control their behavior.

The problem is some of the #killallmen posters are serious. And they tend to get power in the movement, and their less-serious counterparts never seem to take them aside, horrified, and explain (to them) how no, this is hyperbole.

Similarly I suspect most of our Naziposters, given a knife and a bunch of tied-up Jews, would chicken out. But there's probably one or two that would happily cut some throats... and the others, while relieved that they didn't have to do it, would neither stop them nor re-examine their own views.

The biggest difference is that people outside the movement are less likely to excuse the Naziposters than the #killallmen group; being a performative Nazi is still a BAD thing to most, while too many people will say the #killallmen group 'have a point'. So the Naziposters are less dangerous through no fault of their own.

The actual Nazis chickened out of such primitive methods of mass murder; famously they sent baron von Killingren to stop it in Romania and took over from the ustaśe in Croatia to prevent it.

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