site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27002 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Much of SJ is in the latter but not the former.

While SJP certainly has an illiberal strain, I do not think they have the stomach to do what is required to stamp out competing memes. This is a good thing, because unlike your edgelord position, they are numerous.

Their world is a world where people get cancelled if they do a racism on social media, with the definition of racism steadily expanding. However, they do not have a ideological underpinning of violent totalitarianism. I do not see them actually running gulags.

A Nazi would have been willing to murder an "Aryan" German if he was a communist. Cutting out the ideological rot from the people's body and all that bullshit. A SJW will not murder a black lesbian, because his ideology teaches that black lesbians are sacrosanct. This makes it a bad ideology to enforce its own purity, which is a good thing for fans of liberalism.

your edgelord position

Okay, yeah, I'll cop to "wait for my domestic opponents to literally die in a fire" being edge-flavoured. It's not like I'm the one causing the fire, though, and I have tried my best to pull some of them out of the fire with my advocacy for civil defence, so I don't think there's a less edgy position for someone who predicts a high chance of WWIII and has Noticed that SJ is very urban.

I am sorry, I was referring to your analogy between SJ and super-rabies with the outright statement that for the latter murdering the infected would be acceptable.

Of course, I did not pay close enough attention to your disclaimer:

(None of these are exactly my own views. This is an ironman post.)

So feel free to reapply my label to the fictitious person who would make that kind of overton-breaking argument in earnest instead.

If SJWs were into murdering people, which as of 2025 they mostly are not, I think they would cheerfully murder Clarence Thomas, or even Candace Owens.

The Zizians didn't bother with these two particular people. Neither did the group that opened fire on ICE. Nor the bloke that tried shooting Republican congressmen playing baseball.

I know the Zizians killed their landlord and some of their parents, and I think maybe even one of their own, plus I think they tried to kill some cops who were about to arrest them, but did they ever actually pull an outright ideology-only assassination where they didn't have a personal beef with the target? Because that's the reference class I'd think proper.

(To be clear, I'm not for a second claiming they didn't intend on doing this eventually - I've read enough of Sinceriously not to say that in a million years. I'm just asking if they ever got around to actually doing it before they got arrested.)

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