site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27472 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 28, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think that part of the backlash is simply because a lot of people started out primed with a disdain for Sweeney, mainly because of the perception that her popularity is driven purely by her looks, namely her curves. My wife got mad when I said I thought she was great, but my position was that at that point she had pretty much been 2/2 on starring in absolutely amazing shows (Euphoria and White Lotus 1), and she did a commendable job in the movie about Reality Winner. Of course, now that Anything But You has happened (and I love rom coms!), I kind of have to retract my "will watch anything she stars in" position. To me, the Sweeney brand was initially about absolutely impeccable taste, but people who did not appreciate her HBO shows do not realize this.

think that part of the backlash is simply because a lot of people started out primed with a disdain for Sweeney, mainly because of the perception that her popularity is driven purely by her looks, namely her curves

The backlash is because she was in proximity to something Republican - a MAGA-themed party for her family - while looking like the stereotypical hot blonde and playing into it.

There's a similar thing where there's a sort of lurking contempt for Chris Pratt a) being overexposed and b) the church he goes to and his mere silence on progressive issues. The fact that the attempted canceling of him failed when his costars circled the wagons makes it worse: a certain sort of person becomes even angrier in this situation. So the whole thing never goes away. They just...wait for the next thing.

This might sound a bit crazy. That's because it is strange, odd behavior. Nothing is new about this of course. The internet is full of such people (one could argue their labour keep parts of it running). Anyone who's modded can tell you about that crazy person that just can't let go of the bit between their teeth. They become incensed that X is wrong online, they make endless sockpuppets, they lie in wait, they make all sorts of tendentious claims as a way to attack people. Left to their own devices, even just a few can change the culture of a place. I suspect they get off on that too: forcing everyone to be hyper-vigilant around whatever they've decided is their issue today. The main difference is that the media and the masses of right-thinking "allies" don't encourage the ones you run into on random forums, unless it serves some interest of theirs.

COVID was a halcyon age for such people and they don't want it to be over.

Having read the article and looked at the pictures you linked about the "MAGA themed party", I completely disagree with your quoted description. It is very clear to me that this was a country-themed birthday party for her mom and that the supposedly MAGA comes from hats that read "Make Sixty Great Again". This is a play on pop culture, not a theme. If anything, MAGA-adjacent paraphenalia seems more likely to have been worn as a satire of rural rubes who genuinely support the idea.

Are the people who criticized her for it extremely ridiculous? Was Sweeney's tweeted, purposefully vague response absolutely delicious in its commitment to nonspecificity? Is the ridiculousness of the online reaction an exhibit for my theory that Sweeney is especially a target of women haters due to the prominence of her boobs? Yes, yes and probably.

her popularity is driven purely by her looks, namely her curves

This. Both the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe think that prioritising figure over face is lower-class-coded, or perhaps wog-coded, or perhaps that is a distinction without a difference.

But she has a pretty face?

I don't think she'd be nearly as famous as she is if not for her assets.

This seems true, but it seems a bit funny to me because in many ways it's easier to change your figure (via diet and exercise) than your face (beyond haircuts and grooming). The human figure is a very functional thing that conforms to what you do with it.

Huge gazongas on a skinny frame aren't functional.

Honestly I've never been a fan of ones too large to look believable --- there's a reasonable range that adjusts with frame size.

I've always felt asses are more fundamentally meritocratic than breasts for similar reasons, though the whole 'gigantic asses' thing kinda circled back the other way.

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