site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   25707 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 1, 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.

There has been a recent crackdown on naughty games on steam and itch.io. The game platforms say the crackdown has come from payment processors. Payment processors have said they don't want their business associated with unsavory practices, and that adult products have higher charge back rates. Some people have blamed activist religious groups on aggressively lobbying the payment processors for this crackdown.

I mostly feel a sense of annoyance. My libertarian leanings have me feeling certain ways about all this.

  1. The biggest problem is that payment processors are usually an unholy alliance of governments, banks, and financial groups. This makes them allergic to competition and new entrants to the market. The Internet has reshaped society over the last three decades and I'd say only 1.5 payment processors came out of it. PayPal, and the crypto market. The term "coup complete" got thrown around a lot in the Biden presidency to describe what was necessary to build a competing Internet ecosystem.
  2. I'm worried this might signal the revival of the religious culture wars that happened in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000's. It's frustrating to me but a lot of people seem to gravitate towards religion of some kind. I think woke culture has plenty of religious elements. The atheist movement in the 2000s seemed genuinely anti-religious. But it seems the longer term strategy is just have a different religion.
  3. Neutrality as a default. This is the end goal. Once you accept that a thing is subject to politics it becomes entirely subject to politics. We are cancelling thots and porn this year. 4 years ago it was lab leak conspiracies. I certainly think some things are more important to not be censored, but the machinery of censorship seems to work regardless of the subject being censored. Once it is built it will be used.

My libertarian leanings have me feeling certain ways about all this.

This is genuinely interesting to me as I think what these payment processors do is exactly in line with libertarian view. They are private companies and they may refuse business to anybody for any reason.

Well that’s the Hegelian dialectic of freedom innit?

“I think everyone should be free to do whatever they want.”

“Ok then I’m free to make you my slave.”

“Wait that’s not what I meant.”

Of course recourse to a “nonaggression principle” already admits that 1) there are certain other “natural” principles that must be allowed to impinge on the purity of absolute freedom, which leaves open the possibility that there are further “natural” principles that remain undiscovered, and 2) we are in want of a definition of “aggression”, which of course immediately drags us into hopeless complications and confusions.

The natural principles are in one sense a result of natural selection, and in another sense, properties of abstract rationality itself. This is quite literally where social structure emerges from: groups that constantly kill each other by using physical force to resolve disputes are naturally out-competed by groups that preserve their members by resolving disputes in other ways. The laws that emerge might seem messy at first, but all sane laws ultimately just boil down to some flavor of universal quantification: there is a "naturality" to solutions like "person A cuts the cake in 2 pieces, but person B gets to choose which piece is theirs." (to be more mathematically formal, the naturality is if you switched person A and person B, you'd still get the same answer--that the cake is cut in half--which is why this answer is, in some peremptory sense, "better"/more fundamental/more natural than all other answers). This is essentially the Golden Rule / Rawls's Veil of Ignorance / etc. etc. To the extent our complicated mess deviates from this underlying principle, it's just a buggy system -- and any people less myopic and better able to deal with the bugs will be more efficient, and thus ultimately be capable of conquering us, further manifesting the underlying natural structure.

The natural principles are in one sense a result of natural selection, and in another sense, properties of abstract rationality itself. This is quite literally where social structure emerges from: groups that constantly kill each other by using physical force to resolve disputes are naturally out-competed by groups that preserve their members by resolving disputes in other ways.

How did you come up with this? The only true "natural" social law is the law of the jungle or might makes right. History is full of stories where peaceful and pacifist societies were wiped out by groups that cooperated exactly in order to gain strength to protect and impose their will. Like this one or this one or this one.

Maybe I expressed myself poorly.

Let me ground it in hard technical reality: consider Bitcoin. Each individual is pursuing their own interest, and it is this collective pursuit of self-interest that compels the effectiveness of the blockchain into existence. If I make a blockchain where only my magic key can mine coins, that blockchain is great for me, and it may even work well without any bugs -- but nobody will use it because there's nothing in it for them. It is difficult to out-compete Bitcoin with an "unfair" blockchain, in the cut-the-cake-in-two-unequal-pieces sense, though we witness innumerable attempts to do so backed by astronomical amounts of wealth and marketing propaganda.

I'm merely contending that these same underlying dynamics are at play everywhere, and that Bitcoin (or any fair blockchain) is just the most formally-grounded vindication of it.

Of course, you may say "But Soteriologian, aren't central banks kinda like a blockchain with one set of magical mining keys, just like you describe?" Yes, yes, just wait. The truth--meaning the underlying, peremptory rational structure of the universe--will manifest itself. It just takes some time.

The truth--meaning the underlying, peremptory rational structure of the universe--will manifest itself. It just takes some time.

Where does this true underlying structure manifest itself? If anything, it is the law of the jungle that manifests constantly all around us for hundreds of millions of years. That it is why it is called the law of the jungle - each individual or a group of any given species only gets what they can keep from their peers or predators or what they can extract from their prey. You may point out to some groups - like hives of insects or packs of wolves or tribes of apes - but even they themselves are subject to inherent law of the jungle in competition with other groups and organizms.

So again - demonstrate how nonviolent voluntary cooperation is some underlying structure of the universe, some primordial social law. And no, the bitcoin example does not cut it. It would be on the level of an example where a cow eats grass and then shits to provide fertilizer as some "underlying structure" - and even then it is not clear if cows do not commit "violence" on grass which just accepted its fate to be regularly and violently culled, with some grass species developing abrasive properties to harm ruminants who in turn evolved more durable teeth and mouth to chew on it.

I just don't get this hippie talk of peaceful underlying structure of the universe.

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