site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   19498 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 21, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can anybody fill me in on this? I'd seen some Stupid Internet Shit about this but thought it was just edgy nonsense in the same vein about Michelle Obama really being a man. But apparently there's a mini-cottage industry in peddling tales of goings-on in the French president's private and political life?

Attacks on Brigitte Macron’s appearance and falsehoods about her gender have circulated for years, though Owens amplified them considerably in the US. Other prominent women in politics, including Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris, have faced these kinds of “secretly transgender” social media campaigns, the Wilson Center noted in a 2021 report on the “deeply misogynistic” trend. “These narratives tap into the trope of the duplicitous woman, implying that not only are transgender individuals inherently deceptive, but that this deception is responsible for the power and influence that these women hold,” the report said.

The Macrons have previously filed legal claims against two women in France over their theory that Brigitte Macron is a biological male. They were initially found guilty of libel, though that was then overturned, which Brigitte Macron has now appealed.

I don't know who Candace Owens is, and although I've seen her name mentioned online, I deliberately refrained from finding out more because I don't have the time or inclination to go down those rabbit holes. But now the Stupid Edgy Internet Shit is mainstream news, so I am reluctantly requesting information. Can Owens get away with the "clown nose on, clown nose off" Jon Stewart defence of "hey, I'm a comedian and an entertainer, this was just satirical comedy and not meant to be current affairs reporting"? Will we see President and Madame Macron turning up in a Delaware court? How do you tactfully question a witness as to "Yes, you started a romantic affair with your now-husband when you were his teacher and he was in the same class as one of your kids, and his parents tried to separate you so a bit of yikes there, but you are not related to him and so the charges of incest are wrong, as are claims that you were born a male"?

I find it mind-boggling that this nonsense is apparently being taken so seriously, but I guess Emmanuel finally snapped after all the jokes about his height and his 'hot for teacher' marriage. Also it seems that Owens didn't originate these claims, as they started in France, so can that be a defence too?

Prominent US conservative commentator Candace Owens vehemently attacked the first lady in a now-deleted YouTube video posted on March 11, propagating a false claim that first exploded in France just weeks before the 2022 presidential election.

Brigitte Macron is falsely accused of being born as a man called Jean-Michel Trogneux, her maiden surname, with that name going viral as a hashtag.

...Originally shared in the United States on sites like notorious disinformation hub 4chan, the claim snowballed when figures "with very large audiences gave it visibility", doctoral researcher Sophie Chauvet, specialising in audience metrics, told AFP.

In her video, conservative commentator Owens cites a "thorough investigation" by so-called independent journalist Natacha Rey, published in the French newsletter Faits et Documents in 2021.

Founded in 1996 by far-right French figure Emmanuel Ratier and now headed by Xavier Poussard, Faits et Documents regularly promotes stories targeting the first lady, a journalist at the French weekly L'Obs, Emmanuelle Anizon, told AFP.

"But what is new is that Xavier Poussard started translating his articles at the end of 2023," Anizon said, adding that he claims to have sent an English version to those close to former US president Donald Trump.

Anizon, who spoke to Poussard and his associate Aurelien Poirson who advised on the translation, explained that it was no accident that the US far right had taken up the false claim ahead of the November US elections.

My first thought was that she's being sued in Delaware, and in the United States, unlike Europe, truth is an absolute defense against slander and defamation. So getting a medical exam on record is likely to be Candace Owen's first order of business, and then it's over one way or the other.

There are various non-invasive tests for karyotype. If Mme Macron is 46XX, no court is going to order a physical examination.

Owens' only defense here is going to be "I was joking and everyone knows it, so my claims don't count as statements of fact." The US courts are surprisingly willing to accept that defence (see "pedo guy") but Owens calling Mme Macron a man consistently over several years makes it harder.

Can you run two inconsistent defences in a civil trial in the US? You can in a criminal trial ("I didn't kill him, and if I did it was self defence.") But in England that isn't allowed in a civil case. Even if she can, I suspect Owens doesn't ask for medical tests because it makes it harder to make "I was joking" stick.

I mean, I find it ridiculous that a 4chan, sorry, I mean "notorious disinformation hub 4chan" meme is being taken this seriously, but then I remember the OK sign. And it seems some French political rag started it, but that's French politics. All the support for Charlie Hebdo printing cartoons of Mohammed (and I mean this quite separately from the attacks and firebombing) should also extend to stupid right-wing satire about the left-wing president's missis. I acknowledge it's not very comfortable for Mme. Macron, but her husband should be thicker-skinned because yeah, politics.

I hate to give Owens anything, but a free-speech defence may be the way to go here: 'if you are happy about re-publishing cartoons mocking a venerated figure for a couple of billion people, then le président can suck it up'. I think "this claim is so bonkers nobody can possibly take it at face value, seeing as how the woman has given birth to three kids, so this is plainly satirical and not meant as serious political commentary much less claims to be factual" is how it'll go.

All the support for Charlie Hebdo printing cartoons of Mohammed (and I mean this quite separately from the attacks and firebombing) should also extend to stupid right-wing satire about the left-wing president's missis. I acknowledge it's not very comfortable for Mme. Macron, but her husband should be thicker-skinned because yeah, politics.

Legally, there is a big difference between false statements of fact and disrespectful cartoons.

The US courts are surprisingly willing to accept that defence

It's been successfully deployed by both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson, also.

Sounds good to me. Like I said, get the medical test, open and shut case from there.

Stonewall about the medical test... well...

They shouldn't even need a medical test, just hospital records of the birth of her kids. So, yeah: I think the ridiculousness of the claims undercuts the Macrons' case. Had Owens been claiming that Mme. Macron was a cougar who had sex with then-15 year old Emmanuel when he was a student in her class, then sure, go ahead with the defamation case. But "she's saying I'm really a man! who stole someone else's identity! and then married my blood-related literally young enough to be my son husband so we're in a gay incestuous underage relationship!" is so extreme, the standard of "would a reasonable person be led to believe this?" can't be proven. And Michelle Obama hasn't sued anybody for similar claims, so it makes the Macrons look even more thin-skinned and, dare I say it, Trumpian?

And her children look like her, so a secretly-adopted-conspiracy can be dismissed.

Clones or genetic chimera.

Let me add to defamation by positing even more ridiculous epicycles.

Like Kath Two from Seveneves. Later epigenetically transformed into Kath Three. But also trans.

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