site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18206 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 Dread Jim weighs in on the "moderate right".

Basically, to him the right isn't progressing at anywhere near the rate it needs to in order to enact radical change. He uses Asmongold, the popular live streamer, as an example. Asmongold is perceived to be anti-woke, but in reality all of his positions (in Dread Jim's opinion) are moderate/centrist.

For Dread Jim, the only way to save civilization is through the following:

  • Eliminating voting rights for the vast majority of "normies", and all women
  • Executing gay people ("poofs off roofs")
  • "Conscripting wombs"

He seems to view this last solution as the most important. Fathers should once again be responsible for marrying off their daughters, and if that's not possible, the state should step in. Similarly, adultery should be punishable by death.

Barring these radical changes "failure to murder everyone who is insufficiently left is likely to also be 'extreme far radical right'".

I am a right-wing extremist. I am aware of "The Dread Jim" from many previous discussions through the various iterations of this forum.

His proposed solutions are not feasible, nor are they necessary, nor does he appear to possess insight or a track record that makes him worth listening to or discussing in any significant way. He, like many similar "right-wing extremists", appears to be possessed of a combination of panicked fearfulness and abstracted zealotry aimed at a sort of imaginary, narrative-based glorious final battle. He, like many others, lacks the necessary coldness of heart to effectively prosecute the culture war.

His suggestions are similarly foolish.

  • eliminating voting rights is unnecessary if federal power can be annulled and Blue cultural and political power centers neutralized and demolished, which by all evidence appears to be much easier to accomplish.
  • Rolling back LGBT's influence on our society does not require exterminating LGBT people, only creating general awareness of the concrete harms their movement has caused and an understanding that their social control can and must be resisted. This, again, appears to be working.
  • It is a very good idea to roll back feminism and "women's rights" generally. As with LGBT, what this looks like is establishing common knowledge of how these movements have catastrophically overstepped, the concrete harms they've caused, and the ways we were better off before them. Women having the vote is irrelevant if we neutralize the unaccountable power that vote is meant to enable. Relationships between men and women, whether spousal or familial, are not advanced by the sort of iron fist Jim advocates. Loving relationships can exert a level of stabilization, security, and sound life decision-making that Jim's preferred forms of tyranny can never achieve.

This is a more generous assessment of Jim and his ilk than I'd be inclined to give. I think there's less foolishness there and more evil; the pursuit of a good end by bad means has long since given way to a pursuit of a bad end by bad means. I don't think that Jim merely disbelieves that stabilization, security, and sound life decision-making can be achieved by loving relationships; I think he deplores loving relationships in a vacuum. There's some kind of tipping point you often see people running over where reasonable paternalism gives way to an all-consuming hatred.

I think there's less foolishness there and more evil; the pursuit of a good end by bad means has long since given way to a pursuit of a bad end by bad means.

"Evil" and "bad" are meaningless unless one shares values-coherence with the people with one communicates, which is not true for Jim or people who think he's correct, and cannot in general be assumed here. I certainly do consider him evil and agree with the rest of your analysis as to why, but I try not to assume that others share my moral values.

"Evil" and "bad" are meaningless unless one shares values-coherence with the people with one communicates

One of the most poetic things to ever happen is that the great fascist powers were met in their own framework by their enemies and crushed through strength of arms, thus in addition to destroying there power and killing many of them, also defeating them ideologically in the only way that really mattered as far as they were concerned.

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.

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.

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