site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   30617 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 14, 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.

This isn't really something I'm commenting on, but it is culture-war related and I do genuinely want to know, so...

https://archive.ph/20250513114111/https://morlock-holmes.tumblr.com/post/783396406003187712/on-the-one-hand-the-environmental-justice-and

[...]

But I think that culturally, a lot of ordinary left-leaning people had no idea that there was this constantly building demand for Republican Wokeness.

[...] the idea that the dominant majority would be jealous of those tools and want to use them is absurd.

[...] and I never found another left-winger who understood that part of the impetus was to satirize #ownvoices. [...]

I think to a very large extent left-wing culture in the US was totally unprepared for that kind of jealousy. [...]

[...] to a large extent a lot of left-wing culture has been caught flatfooted by this phenomenon because they didn’t see it coming at all. They don’t understand where the psychological impulse comes from and so they have trouble understanding how to fight against it.

Can anyone who considers themselves left of center comment on the accuracy or lack thereof of this post? Is this a thing, or more something particular to this specific guy.

Edit: I'm asking about his description of "what is understood" and preparedness. I'm not really interested in "which specific policies is it this time" or "what makes people feel good about themselves."

I am a bit left of centre and can see some truth in this.

I do think a lot of language policing was done by people who didn't really believe it was a huge favour to the downtrodden groups they were defending. They though it was a small, token thing, and many language policers were actually motivated not because they truly believed they were helping a lot, but more by the status points they got as champions of the disadvantaged.

For this reason, yes, I do think they were surprised that people on the right would want a piece of that. In their heart of hearts, they thought the main prize was the high ground, not being a recipient of some meagre linguistic charity.

This para I slightly disagree with

I think to a very large extent left-wing culture in the US was totally unprepared for that kind of jealousy. Because they sort of thought of themselves as underdogs it was really hard to process the idea that right-wing culture contained a ton of people who desperately wanted to be underdogs in the same way, who didn’t view those things as scraps left over by the powerful, but instead thought of it as what power looks like.

Because I don't think language policers did, for the most part, think of themselves as underdogs. On the contrary, they saw themselves as privileged people defending underdogs. And it's something of a tribute to their power that folks on the right wanted some of the same cultural perks bestowed on them.

Some thoughts that immediately jump to my mind on this subject:

  1. The euphemistic treadmill, which is more of a linguistic phenomenon than a "woke liberal" phenomenon. There is a progression that occurs where words are first used academically and scientifically, then colloquially, and then in a vulgar way. Examples being retarded or hysteria. The role of pseudoscience here is also richly ironic from a culture war perspective as well. IMO this aspect of linguistics is inherent to human nature, and opposition to it is not well-founded in reason. Just accept that words change meanings in a highly predictable way, please.
  2. The leaking of academic or "non-profit" language into colloquial discourse, especially in cases where it disambiguates nuanced concepts within that domain. One example is "unhoused" vs. "homeless", which actually do have utility in terms of what they're precisely trying to describe, but do not have much utility on the 24-hour news cable network.
  3. When words become "purity" memes in academic subcultures: the word Latinx polls very poorly outside of very specific niches. But, if all of your colleagues are using the word Latinx, and you are not, despite the fact that you don't necessarily agree with it, your paper will not get published. But every subculture has its own "purity" memes, and a lot of them are incredibly cringe-inducing. That's what keeps me coming back!

All of these are great cannon fodder to get the red tribe of the culture war fired up, but I personally think they're pretty weak in terms of showing actual flaws in blue tribe principles. There are plenty real flaws in blue tribe principles that these don't really make me lose any sleep.

For context, I think it's talking about this story: https://archive.is/bV9pS https://archive.is/qoyIB

Here's Biden's announcement: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/departments-justice-and-health-and-human-services-announce-interim-resolution-agreement

And Trump's announcement rolling it back: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-terminates-environmental-justice-settlement-agreement-advancing-president

Here's the offending language in the original agreement (emphasis added):

The PHIIP will include the process that ADPH will follow to solicit, coordinate, engage with, and receive the input of Lowndes County residents, representatives of Lowndes County residents, wastewater, infrastructure, soil, and engineering experts, and environmental justice advocates, on the amelioration of public health effects of inadequate onsite wastewater systems.

Also, I don't believe that the consent decree itself provided any funding. So no money was yanked and only the state is to blame if they decide they want to spend the money on something else.

A better fit for the SSQ Sunday thread, surely. Or add more of your own commentary.

Ah, noted. Regardless of topic?

(Should I move the post? Delete here/add there?)

Yeah, SSQ allows culture war topics.

It’s still not for “waging the culture war,” i.e. slinging shit at your outgroup or trying to dredge up drama, but this would be appropriate.

My Rules > Your Rules Applied Fairly > Your Rules Applied Unfairly.

This is "Your Rules Applied Fairly". Congratulations, the left has completely and thoroughly won! Rejoice!

What? This isn't what you wanted after all? Huh.

It isn't even to that level, though, at least not with the grant proposals. "By our rules we filled the grant proposals with language that favored us. Then you found that language and removed it or canceled the grants. HYPOCRITES!!!"

As others have already been kind enough to point out, the mod team asks that top-level posts within the CWR thread have more to them than a bare-link. Ideally, with more substantive commentary or an explanation of why this worth time and attention. At the absolute bare minimum, quotes of the source material and your thoughts on the matter where relevant.

Meta: This is more or less a bare link.

Did you know that if you start a line with the greater-than character, themotte will show that line as a quotation? Also, most browsers allow you to mark text on websites and "copy" it by holding the Ctrl (or Command on Apple), then pressing the "C" key (Ctrl-C). With Ctrl-V, you can "paste" that text into a text field.

Using quotations and copy pasting together, you can do something like this (Click on the view source button at the end of this comment to see how it is done):

I LOVE DANGER ZONE writes:

Left-wingers tend to think of standpoint epistemology stuff, or various kinds of language policing, as a kind of consolation prize for minorities in an economically and legally subordinate position. Scouring grant proposals for non-inclusive language, pointing out microagressions, asking people to defer to your lived experience, these are tools for non-dominant minorities to begin to build the case for economic and legal equality. The dominant majority doesn’t need those things, the idea that the dominant majority would be jealous of those tools and want to use them is absurd.

[...]

I think to a very large extent left-wing culture in the US was totally unprepared for that kind of jealousy. Because they sort of thought of themselves as underdogs it was really hard to process the idea that right-wing culture contained a ton of people who desperately wanted to be underdogs in the same way, who didn’t view those things as scraps left over by the powerful, but instead thought of it as what power looks like.

I'm not left of center, but I'll comment anyway.

Of course he's correct. Of course people want to feel like underdogs, of course they want to feel like they have their own "secret club" that the Squares In Power don't have access to. Like, duh. The right is very much not immune to this. Being the underdog lends moral credibility to your cause, it galvanizes your base, there's an intrinsic thrill to the feeling of powerlessness itself, etc.

But, and here's the kicker, all of this applies to the left too. And he's so close to getting it, he's describing everything perfectly, "for the right it's really all about their libidinal investment in their own symbolic matrix of floating signifiers, they love the struggle itself more than what they struggle for, the goal of every political cause is ultimately just to reproduce itself", and I'm nodding along going yes yes yes... but then he has to tack on, "but of course the left isn't like this at all, when we talk about microaggressions it's just a purely rational response to objective conditions of oppression, there's nothing libidinal to analyze there, no siree", and I'm like... no you were so close! Everything you were saying about the right applies to the left too, they're exactly the same in this regard.

I not infrequently have this experience when reading posts from leftists, where they're right on the ball and they're so close to understanding everything, and then at the last minute they veer off into "...but of course, we are Good and they are Evil, and that is the chasm that separates us". Their ideology is axiomatically predicated on the explicit denial of this aspect of their own psyche, so they remain forever blind to it.

If you're a leftist you can't actually grant that your opponents are on the same level.

Because many of the tactics they use are not things you can universalize, they're good because of who those things are being done to or for.

Granting that it's just a contest of will/a way to feel good is obviously very dangerous for what sees itself as a minority pushing society towards progress. Nihilism favors the majority.

Generally the mods want a little more for a top level comment btw, at least summarizing the link preferably.

I"m left of center, and I'd love to help, but I read that comment about five times and I'm not sure what you're asking. It would probably have been better to write a gloss of the (article? comment?) and ask a specific question rather than post it and ask if it's "accurate". Now's your chance.

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