site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25675 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.

Speak plainly, please. What is the relevance to the present discussion?

If anyone can be called a fascist without hyperbole, it's Jim, and he operates on this level with this exact mindset. He does not see right and wrong, only will to power. I find it satisfying that his ideological forbearers were defeated in the way that they were.

This is unfair and untrue. Jim very much does see a distinction between right and wrong. In his recent "Genocide", for example, you can see that he differentiates between legitimate genocide, when a defeated group refuses to stop fighting, and illegitimate genocide, such as the Tutsis in Rwanda, which was committed "for utterly trivial, wicked, evil, and frivolous reasons".

Similarly, in his earlier "How to Genocide Inferior Kinds in a Properly Christian Manner", he argues that you cannot just kill savages and take their stuff, because that undermines the high trust equilibrium of strong property rights that makes civilization great. Instead, he recommends legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes, and then killing them and taking their stuff.

The beauty of this approach is that it will only work if the savages are genuinely inferior; an intelligent people will not sell their land for immediate consumption goods, the way a modern ghetto dweller will take out a payday loan to buy Air Jordans or a PS5, and an honorable people will not react to losing out on the deal by waging war against the folks that purchased the land, the way that same ghetto dweller will burn down the pawn shop for predatory lending. Thus, their destruction is legitimized by their own wicked natures.

This is a recurring theme in Jim's writing, explaining goodness in terms of game theory and material consequences. As he notes, this ends up to a large extent rederiving traditional Christian morality; risen killer apes and fallen angels are basically the same, so it doesn't really matter if you get your ethics from Darwin or from Jesus.

This is a recurring theme in Jim's writing, explaining goodness in terms of game theory and material consequences. As he notes, this ends up to a large extent rederiving traditional Christian morality

Pretty much doubt. I mean, I'd probably have to wade through a bunch of garbage to distill out an actual attempted derivation; it's much more likely to be a loose collection of handwavy claims than any sort of serious deductive argument.

It's kind of funny how all sides of the atheist internecine war want to make claims that the core of their morality is game theory. Of course, this game theory is somehow "not objective", meaning that other people can't simply rederive it from the premises... but good luck asking them to explain how that's supposed to work. And more funny is that they all seem to come up with quite different conclusions about what their handwavy game theory premises are supposed to imply (derivation often not shown). I'm pretty confident that the folks here who appeal to it don't think it directly derives traditional Christian morality. ...especially not Jim's version.

So I read that article and am pretty unconvinced. For one a lot of nonwhites are already here and are thus neighbors according to Jim's reading if the parable. The other is most of the starving African children that Jim references are Christian and there's all sorts of stuff in the New Testament about helping brothers of the faith. I feel like Jim's Christianity is about as true to the text as Episcopalians which is to say they really really want to ignore the parts of the bible that conflict with their internal morality. He references the old testament genocides but all of those were towards pagans not towards believers.

erwgv3g34 thers nothing I think I could say to you that wouldn't violate TOS other than "May your blade chip and shatter"

I am very curious to hear what you would say. Try to dilute the message so it's acceptable, as painful as that may be for you.

I think it's extremely likely that, given its extreme nature that any attempt to seriously take action to make his political dreams a reality would decrease the population of this server by at least one user, one way or another.

Because you'd leave in a huff, or because you'd kill him, or because somebody else would kill him? Or maybe you'd kill yourself? What?

Throwing around apophatic insults and speaking in riddles isn't as cool as you think it is.

This entire thread is going nowhere good. I think we all understood him to be saying "I want to tell you to FOAD in a way the rules won't allow me to say," and we'd prefer people did not play those sorts of word games. We'd also prefer people did not try to egg each other on to see if you can get someone to cross the line. So everyone chill, now.

Nobody is evil in their own mind. Of course Jim has rationalizations for why beating and raping women is good and why genocide is virtuous. You only buy these rationalizations if you agree with him in the first place. The same is true for people like KulakRevolt, agitating daily for race war and genocide, and our resident Jew-haters. No one says "Yeah, I just hate these people and want to kill them." They construct elaborate rationalizations for why the people they hate deserve it and they are acting morally --in self defense, even.

That's broadly true, no one just wakes up one day and for no reason at all decides to in their heart of hearts, hate and loathe a group of people. They gradually begin to hate them, through exposure.

This would be a fully generalizable argument that all group hatreds are justifiable and deserved reactions. The specific word choices you use make it obvious which group(s) you are referring to, but that does not make such reactions rational or earned. Jim, no doubt, did not "wake up one day and for no reason at all" decide to hate women and minorities. He will of course say it's because they oppress him, because giving them rights has made his life worse, because they are wicked and inferior and the world would be better if they didn't exist. But of course groups who hate all white people or men or Christians on general principle will likewise tell a story of being oppressed by their existence and gradually beginning to hate them through exposure, not "we just woke up one day and for no reason at all decided we hate you."

Similarly, in his earlier "How to Genocide Inferior Kinds in a Properly Christian Manner", he argues that you cannot just kill savages and take their stuff, because that undermines the high trust equilibrium of strong property rights that makes civilization great. Instead, he recommends legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes, and then killing them and taking their stuff.

The beauty of this approach is that it will only work if the savages are genuinely inferior;

Like the Irish and Polish. In fact, quite a few European peoples could have been genocided under this framework.

In his recent "Genocide", for example, you can see that he differentiates between legitimate genocide, when a defeated group refuses to stop fighting, and illegitimate genocide, such as the Tutsis in Rwanda, which was committed "for utterly trivial, wicked, evil, and frivolous reasons".

I am skeptical that the difference between these two is meaningful. How does this model apply to the Melian Dialogue?

This is a recurring theme in Jim's writing, explaining goodness in terms of game theory and material consequences.

Goodness, at least my own understanding of it, is not reducible to game theory and material consequences. Based on your description, Jim does not appear to have any meaningful understanding of Christianity, and I certainly do not appreciate his appropriation of my faith for his own ends.

It may in fact not matter whether you get your ethics from Jesus or Darwin; I do not observe Jim to be winning to any appreciable degree, and do not think his fortunes likely to change in the future. I observe that many people have proclaimed Darwinian fitness where Darwinian fitness did not in fact exist. I note that my own values appear to by highly adaptive, but it seems to me that a good deal of what makes them adaptive is a willingness to adhere to them whether they appear adaptive or not.

Thank you.

I'm generally skeptical of the term "fascist" for people who don't choose it themselves, but don't particularly disagree. If the Jim Party somehow secured power where I live, I think fighting them would likewise be the morally correct option, and would have every confidence of victory.

Yeah even ignoring all the murder the level of government control he want would be intolerable, in addition to micromanaging personal interaction I suspect the Jim party would wind up suppressing basically every Christian denomination as "heretical churchianity"

As an aside, just because I often muse about this whenever he's brought up, is there a consensus estimate on how fucking old Jim is at this point? The absolute low ball has to be 60 but he could be like 80 and still doing this.

Yeah I really want to know this too. It'd be wild if he was 80 and still using terms like "facefag" on the internet.

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