site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   22589 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Coordinating Mechanism for Woke

From the early 2010s until roughly 2023, the prevalence of woke coded speech on the internet was constantly on the rise. There has been endless debate over the origins of it, but everyone here is likely familiar with the terms, tone, and intent of such speech. And then, suddenly, in the last 2 years, it basically vanished. Sure there are small, insular corners of the media landscape that still openly discuss such ideas. But on almost all mainstream sites, media outlets, shows, newsletters, etc, the prevalence of woke coded language has decreased by an order of magnitude.

The political reasons for this should be obvious at this point, but what I find puzzling is the speed at which this marked drop was coordinated across all types of media. I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to believe there is any shadowy cabal actually orchestrating this. But in the absence of any other coordination mechanism, I have a hard time understanding what has caused this. You would expect a movement that built momentum and followers steadily over a number of years to take an equal amount of time to slow down. Indeed, most other social trends follow that pattern. But in this case, the halt was sudden and ubiquitous. So, as the title implies, my question is really about how this has happened.

If I were to speculate, I'd say that any mass coordination across disparate elements of society, without any authority dictating it, has all the hallmarks of the invisible hand. And if it were only news institutions and media outlets I would give more credence to this theory. But just looking at social media postings, there has been a huge drop in people using this type of language. Attending free activities and events, this rhetoric is less prevalent. And since I have a very hard time accepting that the beliefs themselves are gone, I can't come up with a convincing explanation.

The pivot happened after October 7th, when the woke movement and campus protestors in particular transitioned from anti-white demonstration to protesting Israel. That was the moment the elite apparatus, with Bill Ackman being an iconic example of someone who supported wokeness before that moment, but then had a "realization" that wokeness had run amok and had to be extirpated from elite colleges, began his highly public "war on woke." Ackman, he says, had no idea how dangerous Wokeness truly was until they started protesting Israel:

I ultimately concluded that antisemitism was not the core of the problem, it was simply a troubling warning sign – it was the “canary in the coal mine” – despite how destructive it was in impacting student life and learning on campus.

I came to learn that the root cause of antisemitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech and harassment.

Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more ignorant I realized I had been about DEI, a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large. I came to understand that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was not what I had naively thought these words meant.

I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing, and more.

What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.

This dovetails with the rise of "anti-woke" figures like Bari Weiss poised to be installed at the top of CBS with her shitty news startup about to be acquired for $200 million, also demonstrating this realignment at the highest levels of media.

an oppressor/oppressed framework

I mean, how did people not see that "racism is power + prejudice" basically pattern-matched to bog-standard anti-semitism? Was it that they didn't want to think it might turn against Jews? That this time, it would be used righteously despite being almost word for word how anti-semites justified hating a small minority that they thought were privileged and had control? (See also: Men Kampf)

Lots of people saw this ahead of time, but only the chuds said it out loud.

I mean, how did people not see that "racism is power + prejudice" basically pattern-matched to bog-standard anti-semitism?

The woke crowd, for a long time, basically ignored Jews and the Japanese as groups within the US. These two groups being counter examples that oppression was the cause of groups having bad/low SES outcomes. The Jews having a multi-thousand year history of it and the Japanese being put into camps and having most of their assets stripped from them during WWII. Both groups doing reasonably well post-war.

There were some attempts at addressing this with talk about the "model-minority myth", but the default was to just not bring it up for a very long time.

Speaking of, anyone have a steelman of model minority being a myth? I'm reading the wikipedia article and this clearly isn't it. It's honestly the most insane cope I've read in years. Nothing but nitpicking obfuscation and moral condemnation for noticing.

I've never heard any reference to "model-minority myth" that wasn't clearly just starting from the axiom that America is racist and minorities can't possibly succeed by any excellence inherent to their genetics or culture. If those are your unquestioned premises, then you can derive that:

  • Asians aren't really more successful, the racist society just props them up in a false position to further oppress blacks and Latinos.
  • Because "successful Asian" is a role society is asking Asians to play for racist purposes, it is harmful to Asian people who have to either play into it and thus reject their authentic selves, or reject it and fight other people's expectations their whole lives.

The wikipedia takes a different route to any of those and basically just argues this can't possibly be true because if it were then people would support policies we don't like.

Despite widespread scholarly criticism of the model minority myth as a racialized and harmful stereotype, its influence continues to persist in media, education, and policy discourse. Academically, the myth has been widely discredited for obscuring structural inequalities and reinforcing anti-Blackness, but in practice, it is still frequently invoked—both implicitly and explicitly—when portraying Asian American communities as exceptionally successful or culturally predisposed to achievement.

The only point in the article where it even makes an attempt as disputing the facts of the matter is by saying that the 1965 immigration act lead to selection effects of rich asians moving to america, which I don't buy for a second for many reasons.

I'm pretty sure I brought up that woke was naturally antisemitic before october 7th either here or on the subreddit and was told "nah it'll never happen". The thing is, there have been a lot of firmly antisemtic people on the extreme right for a long time, which made woke people take the opposite side reflexively, that made it seem like the safer bet.

I would say that Jews have bought a little too much into their own national mythology, and seeing themselves as the perpetual underdog has not prepared them to wield power. It manifests in the obviously authoritarian crackdowns in the west against anti-semeticism that even the most blind liberal has noticed. No one can honestly claim the Jews have no power in the west, and they have obvious tribal enmity with the Arabs. Is this not the prejudice and power that progressive constantly scold against?

Something something, golem...

No one can honestly claim the Jews have no power in the west, and they have obvious tribal enmity with the Arabs. Is this not the prejudice and power that progressive constantly scold against?

Took a while to realize that "we have a culture of learning" isn't flying anymore.

Anyways I think the problem here is just numbers. I can see how a certain status quo would convince progressive Jews they'd never be turned on. But when you have as many or more Muslims in the mix, who can claim victimhood without the massive issues raised by Israel, they'll always be more appealing for the woke. Especially since 9/11 made them even more suspect in the eyes of their red tribe enemy.

Something about leopards and faces....

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