site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   32449 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.

I have a hard time believing there's any actually damning evidence against Trump or really anyone, or else someone would have leaked something by now. It's been a big issue for years, multiple administrations.

The common retort is that there’s stuff on Bill Clinton as well as Trump so they can’t. But this is a bad argument because

  1. They could just have published the Trump stuff and conveniently redacted the Bill Clinton stuff if they had wanted to.

  2. I really don’t think Bill’s grip on the party is so strong that they wouldn’t throw him under the bus to attack Trump if necessary.

I also don't think anyone would care if Bill was partying too hard with 16 year old girls. He's, uh, not exactly a current figure these days and nobody sane was going to trust him with their daughter anyway. Probably most of this stuff is beyond the statute of limitations or otherwise not prosecutable too.

Well besides any formal revelation of the documentation, I'd expect at least partial leaks of any juicy bits. Or at least semi-credible rumors.

For instance, there are allegations that there are never-released tapes of Trump saying very politically correct things on The Apprentice.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-trump-apprentice-tapes/story?id=57192712

For the Epstein stuff, I'm not aware of any specifics like that. Obviously, the typical person highly interested in Epstein is also pretty dang MAGA, and this tension has now been built in since Trump I. But it's not like the Epistemically Unsound Left hasn't tried to believe anything possible about Trump being a rapist. Or a Russian asset.* I loved BlueAnon believing the assassination attempt was faked.

So the simplest explanation is there's "no there, there." Can't leak what doesn't exist. The MAGA [REDACTED] Nation has just been spewing BS and is now the dog that caught the car while also driving the car.

The whole "intel black op theory" at least theoretically explains why no one is revealing any further details (if they even exist). Of course, if Epstein was supporting highly controversial totally black ops, one would hope the relevant intel agencies would have spirited him away, or conducted some kind of much cleaner cover up much earlier.

*For the record, RussiaGate did in fact find a lot of pretty bad shit that would have been unthinkable. But claims and expectations exceeded evidence; so some can pretend Trump was totally vindicated and it was all a hoax.

You know what sucks about these discussions everywhere else on the Internet? That you can't go more than two or three posts without seeing "Looney Left" and "MAGAtard Nation."

We discourage this for a reason.

My apologies.

I was trying to specify the particularly looney part of the Left, not the whole Left.

Harder to make that distinction for the MAGA community, sadly.

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