site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32200 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 feel like this discussion is the missing ingredient to lots of the topics du jour. Let's take the leftward drift of young women- well social conservatism today seems to have, uh, not discussed what other people owe to them, only what they owe to other people.

Eh, I see this discussion a lot. One common line is that what other people (specifically, men, specifically, husbands) owed them -- mostly financial support and physical protection -- is something that they can now either provide for themselves or will be provided by the state, so they no longer need to offer anything.

But in general social conservatism is hierarchical, not reciprocal. Duties are owed to those higher up; parents, church, community. Even those things owed to another person of similar rank or lower down are not owed to them per se, but owed to them because it is ones duty to society to provide it. This is one of the reasons social conservatism is so stifling, especially to the young (who are low in the hierarchy).

Duties are owed to those higher up; parents, church, community. Even those things owed to another person of similar rank or lower down are not owed to them per se, but owed to them because it is ones duty to society to provide it.

The flip side is that the higher in the hierarchy you go, the higher the demands. A king has far, far more virtues to live up to and a far heavier burden to carry than a peasant. Being a priest puts far higher demands and far higher responsibilities on a person than being a layman.

A king has far, far more virtues to live up to and a far heavier burden to carry than a peasant.

And yet people regularly murder each other to become king and rarely murder each other to become a peasant.

Yeah, that's the burden part.

In the same way that when I buy a Costco box of cookies I've burdened myself with eating them.

I'm being serious, what part of having to be constantly looking over your shoulder and being unable to trust even your closest relatives sound appealing to you.

Power is a curse, all those who actually tasted it will tell you. It eats at all of your life until nothing is left, and for what? In the end you only can make the decisions that allow you to maintain your station.

History is full of men who wanted nothing to do with it. And rightfully so.

Its only redeeming quality is that in the hands of your enemies, it is even more terrible than in yours.

But what has humanity ever hoped for if not for someone else to deal with anarchy? Entire societies built just so we don't have to do this dirty work ourselves. Whole religions spent on dreaming someone is doing it for us when we are too weak.

Power is a curse, all those who actually tasted it will tell you. It eats at all of your life until nothing is left, and for what? In the end you only can make the decisions that allow you to maintain your station.

Does this describe Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump? I don't think so. Vladimir Putin... LOL.

But what has humanity ever hoped for if not for someone else to deal with anarchy? Entire societies built just so we don't have to do this dirty work ourselves. Whole religions spent on dreaming someone is doing it for us when we are too weak.

A very Hobbesian view, but there are clearly many men (and a smaller but not insignificant number of women) who love power much.

Does this describe Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump? I don't think so. Vladimir Putin... LOL.

Oh it certainly does. Obama's not shy about his frustration at being unable to change things because he had to spend his time greasing the wheel. Trump's entire first term was one compromise after another. Clinton is famous for doing a 180 on his economic policy after getting a stern talking to. And Putin's basically "look what you made me do": the foreign policy.

That's just how power is, read Dictator's Handbook for an explanation as to why: you can't rule alone, so you have to balance the needs and wants of your keys to power, and once you've managed that, you get to enjoy a little bit of vanity, as a treat.

Consequential rulers manage to be so because they hold solid well aligned coalitions of easy to satify people, and are competent enough to maintain them. People who rule by whim or principle never do so for long. Ask Liz Truss.

there are clearly many men (and a smaller but not insignificant number of women) who love power much

Undeniable, you certainly mentioned some. But these are not most men.

Obama is frustrated over not having EVEN MORE POWER (as is Trump), but neither consider power a curse. Nor Clinton, nor Trump.

I can think of two rulers throughout history who were actually reluctant -- and the second (Washington) is probably just American lore.

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