site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   28518 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A common flavor of mockery is to find leftist posts about "what I'll do after the socialist revolution" and ridicule them. We were discussing the genre and the general amusement at folks that think they will have a quasi-aristocratic life: oh I'll work on the commune garden and teach embroidery and prepare meals for everyone. Weirdly, many of the posts by women ended up being weirdly trad too -- but that's a bit of a sidetrack.

Example

KYM

My friend had an important insight: there is probably a rightist/reactionary equivalent to this. That's a good observation. We came up with a few of these

  • He believes society has prevented him from being a warlord, it more likely prevented him from being a slave
  • He believes society could police sexual & religious morality, it would more likely have had him flogged for drinking or disrespect or dirty jokes
  • He believes he'd be the head of a respected family, more likely he'd chafe under his grandfather/uncle's authority

Yes, I’d say there are definitely people like this — though, as @IGI-111 points out, not in the symmetric way you pose; I’ve gotten that “you support monarchy/aristocracy/reaction only because you think you’d be king/a lord” bit before, and when I turn it back on them — is the only reason you hold your political views because you expect to personally benefit? — it does indeed seem to be projection/typical-minding.

And beyond endorsing both IGI-111 and @Stellula’s replies, I’ll note that I, as a reactionary, have repeatedly responded to the “you think you’ll be king” arguments with acknowledgement that, no, I’ll be dead. As I’ve said more than once, my ideal society would probably have me executed.

I’m well aware that the liberal modernity I oppose is the only thing keeping me alive at all, let alone giving me the lifestyle I currently have, and that come any serious reactionary victory, my life will most likely end (and become massively worse in the case it doesn’t)… and yet I still want that liberal modernity destroyed.

(Has anyone here seen the movie Serenity — the Firefly sequel/conclusion movie? If so, do any of you remember the speech by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s nameless “Operative” character — the “there's no place for me there” one?)

I don't know exactly what your ideology is, but murdering the disabled for being a burden is a thing I associate with liberal democracies like Canada, or with Nazi Germany(as far as I know there were not other fascist regimes that did this). It's not exactly associated with monarchism or reactionary government generally.

but murdering the disabled for being a burden is a thing I associate with liberal democracies like Canada

It wouldn't be my disability that would get me executed; that would just get me cut off from the welfare teat and left to starve. No, I'd expect it to be my atheism that would do it.

I mean, reactionary authoritarian governments are generally not interested in interrogating random poor people about their innermost beliefs. American Franco would be content if you just shut up.

Modern "reactionary authoritarian governments" are still too modern — I don't recall any of them restoring feudalism and hereditary aristocracy, let alone pre-Reformation attitudes on the role of the Church. Franco was, ultimately, a failure, primarily because he wasn't nearly reactionary enough.

Franco was a failure because of a handful of specific mistakes- among them choosing a compromise candidate for the throne rather than a carlist and choosing to repress the basques.

All of these had reasonable explanations at the time, and probably would have been survivable if it wasn’t for Vatican II. The Catholic Church bureaucrats maintaining his regime(fascism does not have enough staying power) were very affected by this. ‘Not enough power for the Catholic church’ is a baffling criticism of Franco.

Franco, like Emperor Franz Joseph, committed the grace political mistake of living too long.

‘Not enough power for the Catholic church’ is a baffling criticism of Franco.

Which is why my criticism isn't "not enough power for the Catholic church" so much as "didn't turn the clock back far enough, and in too few areas." As you note, fascism does not have enough staying power; I'd say that's because it's way too modern.

Show me a leader who will give his best efforts to roll back every part of society he can — except science and technology — to before 1500 AD, and that would be a proper reactionary.

Edit: as I've said to people before, most Americans' vision of the "sci-fi far future" looks like Star Trek — ranging from TOS for the Republicans to Kurtzman's abominations for the Woke (or, for some of the well-read "Grey Tribe" techno-optimists in places like this, it looks something like "The Culture" (shudders)).

Me? It looks more like Battletech, Dune, or Warhammer 40,000.

Your ideal society is western Saudi Arabia?

I know you're depressed and suicidal, but I must grant that it's worthy of respect to endorse a system so contrary to your own continued wellbeing (or lack thereof). At the very least, you know what you're asking for.

Not to speak for the OP but there a liberating clarity in the proferred societies rightwingers espouse. By material or immaterial benefits being realized by knowing the rituals and paths it at least provides a framework towards which apotheosis can be achieved for at least some theoreticals. If all we have to look forward to is anodyne self destructive indulgence like /r/antiwork mods pray for, rightists would at least want to nuke the swamp before throwing themselves into the woodchipper.

I’m well aware that the liberal modernity I oppose is the only thing keeping me alive at all, let alone giving me the lifestyle I currently have, and that come any serious reactionary victory, my life will most likely end (and become massively worse in the case it doesn’t)… and yet I still want that liberal modernity destroyed.

Well, I appreciate the honesty, but why would anyone join you on it?

Has anyone here seen the movie Serenity — the Firefly sequel/conclusion movie? If so, do any of you remember the speech by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s nameless “Operative” character — the “there's no place for me there” one?

I also thought of that. It's a good cultural marker how one feels about that speech.

Well, I appreciate the honesty, but why would anyone join you on it?

Well, because probably the majority of people with similar views would benefit from it, for one — indeed, I've had fellow reactionaries argue that the mere fact of my disability means I "don't belong" on the right, despite our shared views; and that, per Spandrell's Bioleninism, my "only place" in politics is "on the Left, voting Dem in exchange for gibs" until the Reaction comes and disposes of subhumans like me.

is the only reason you hold your political views because you expect to personally benefit?

No, but if a political system screws people like me or literally kills them, then I do not endorse it.

It's a core right/left political distinction whether 'people like me' means people like me or people in my shoes.

Is it fundamentally about class consciousness? About religion, ethnicity, geography, and family?

In the USA the rightist party is leftist, for making class based appeals. The leftist party is rightist, for making ethnic appeals.

No, but if a political system screws people like me or literally kills them, then I do not endorse it.

Well, that depends on how broadly or narrowly, and on which axes, you define "people like me." Because, with respect to my own political preferences, it "screws people like me" if you define that on terms like "people too disabled to work," but not if you define on terms like "Red Tribe Alaskans."

Eh, my fantasy in a Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo sort of situation isn't to be a king/warlord, it's to be a gunsmith supplying any and all takers.

Edit:

Looks like @Southkraut and I have basically the same dream

Yeah. "Have someone else take care of the aspects of my life I dislike while I double down on what I'm good at." probably describes a wide range of wishful thinking scenarios, political on both sides and otherwise.

One of the best villains in film.

is the only reason you hold your political views because you expect to personally benefit?

not only, but it is surely one of crucial parts

and I do not see it as a really bad thing

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