site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9970 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.

Can a Bannon-Groyper Alliance Derail Vance?

This was a fun article looking forward to 2028. Here are the main points:

  • JD Vance is the overwhelming favorite to win the R nomination in 2028. He has a >50% chance as of now, while the next nearest candidates are <10%.
  • However, the Groyper faction, i.e. people who associate with Nick Fuentes, is not happy with him.
  • Nick Fuentes is probably the second most important person to watch on the Republican side after Trump himself. He has a lot of "energy", and has the benefit of being extremely online. People keep making the mistake that the "real world" is more important than a small fringe of online crazies, and they keep getting proven wrong over and over and over (e.g. with woke, the alt right, gender identity on Tumblr). The arc of MAGA is long, but it bends towards Based.
  • The best case for Vance is one where he becomes the heir-apparent to the Trump cult through an explicit endorsement from Trump himself. If he plays his cards right in that case, then the 2028 R nomination could look like a coronation with Vance simply refusing to debate any challengers and sailing to victory without really having to make his case beyond generic Trumpy pablum.
  • The worst case for Vance goes something like this: he doesn't get Trump's endorsement, perhaps from his rivals spreading conspiracies that any faults of the Trump admin were from Vance being insufficiently loyal to Trump. If Trump is flattered by these ideas he could stay out of the fray, which means Vance would have to do a real campaign. Then, he could find himself under a pincer attack by Groypers slamming the fact he has an Indian wife and brown children, while Bannon attacks him in a conventional way for something like insufficient loyalty to Dear Leader. In this case, Vance could find himself in a similar spot to Jeb Bush -- a frontrunner with little "energy" who's mercilessly savaged from all sides until he has a few disappointing results and drops out.
  • Expect the Republican consensus on Israel to crack at least a little bit over the coming decades, again thanks to the Groypers.

About that.

I'm and pretty sure that for 99% of Republican primary voters, their opinion on Nick Fuentes is somewhere between "that wierd gay Mexican kid that hates the Jews?" and "literally who?"

Also polling was done recently and 6% of those polled had a favorable opinion of Fuentes, 33% had a negative view of him, and presume the rest had no clue who he was: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bj9_tUbMG1yCnME1rc7ggQF7qt8mmxetIfD7bQL167w/htmlview#gid=0

And, confirming my stereotypes for the median white nationalist, Fuentes has highest favorability amongst young black and hispanic men.

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