site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   41966 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 8, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Last week I wrote about the NYT’s coverage of the Minneapolis school shooting, where the headline and article repeatedly used “Ms.” and “her” for the shooter, Robin Westman. That may follow their style guide, but in the context of a mass killing, it reads less like neutral reporting and more like ideological signaling. The pronouns end up being the story, while two murdered children fade into the background.

Now there’s the coverage of the truly awful video released of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee stabbed to death on a Charlotte train. There are familiar editorial fingerprints from the ‘style guide’. The NYT capitalizes “Black” but leaves “white” lowercase. Elon Musk pointed this out and it’s getting traction. This is a policy shift the NYT, AP, and others made in 2020 after George Floyd’s killing, with the reasoning that “Black” marks shared cultural identity, while capitalizing “White” risks feeding white-identity politics.

That may be defensible as a policy, but applied in a case where a Black suspect kills a white victim, it lands as bias whether intended or not. The style guide twice now ends up louder than the tragedy itself.

When editorial rules like these are applied without reflection, they pull focus from the human story. It truly makes me upset because these were horrific events. There’s no reason to show off your liberal bona fides at all. Just show compassion for the victims and don’t preemptively build up scaffolding for when it will be used as culture war fuel.

Frankly, I think that articles like this make race relations in America worse. I don’t think that the killing has anything to do with race, at all. It’s about violence in America, which is so insanely out of control. I think cloaking it in platitudes about decreasing crime rate stats also shows how scared of second-order effects news organizations are.

I read a book recently about the history of imprisonment in Texas. It talks about restorative justice and prison labor etc. I don’t know what else you’re supposed to do besides reassure the public that this man (or anyone inflicting evil on others) will never see the light of day again

Whatever you think of the style guide, they shouldn't change it for one story.

If it's bad for one story, and it should be consistent for every story, then...

I, for one, would be happy if they got rid of their racially-biased capitalization. I can't even point to this story as the basis of my opinion, as I thought it was bullshit politicization from the first time I heard of it.

I think they should get rid of the capitalisation too. The reasoning is too America centric for a paper with global reach (not everyone identifying as black does share a cultural identity, even if there is a shared cultural identity and history among many black people in the US).

I think the gender pronouns are fine though and non-honorific, and it would be ridiculous to suddenly stop using them if a trans person commits a crime. (The reporting should make their trans identity clear, which it easily can without mis gendering.)

"misgendering" is a propaganda term.

Personally I do use trans pronouns as an honorific for well-socialized trans people who are well-integrated into the social fabric. And I do remove them if a person acts in antisocial manner. Otherwise, the pronouns serve to cloak the identity of the person (usually as an antisocial man, who is actively hacking people's threat assessment with female identification), which is exactly the harmful case that TERFs are worried about

That's your prerogative but to me your argument is identical to someone saying, 'I use regular pronouns as honorifics. 'He' is no longer worthy to be called a man, so I use the term 'it'. It should be hanged'. You can do that if you want, yes, but you assume too much if you think others must be using the terms the way you do.

It's not mere contempt though. It's specifically using trans norms as camouflage for bad actors that I'm concerned about. Women are considered less dangerous and awarded more sympathy than men. Trans identified men who are bad actors specifically take advantage of that.

When I heard "Ziz" referred to as "she", I specifically was not on alert for a psychotic man to be active in my social circles and I underweighted the danger from Ziz as my priors were set to "female" and not "male". If I knew there was a murderous psychopath named Jack LaSota going around, that primes my behavior differently.

Trans language pollutes the information commons, to the benefit of evildoers

I understand the issue, I'm not sure how significant it is though. I feel that using preferred gender pronouns can be compatible with being upfront about a person's transness, so any misdirection would be just for a brief moment (for example, a news report can use 'she' while also mentioning someone's trans status right away). So your threat monitoring can resume as normal after just a beat.

To understand your approach better, may I ask how you decide when to 'award' preferred gender pronouns? You mentioned you do it with people who are well integrated. Do you use their assigned-at-birth pronouns at first, and then only after getting to know them and trust them switch over?

In the bay area, there was one particular trans woman who passed well, was sociable, and all around pleasant to be around. She wasn't very forward with the fact that she was trans, so it took me a bit by surprise when I eventually found out. I used her name and preferred pronouns. There were several other awkward non-passing males who haunted the outside of gatherings. I never interacted with them much, and part of my reluctance to do so would have been feeling like I was betraying my own perception and being coerced into using names/pronouns that I did not believe in.

I don't use preferred pronouns for murderers and sociopaths, and I try to use birth name where available. Mr. Wax-my-balls is Jonathan Yaniv, not his preferred porn name Jessica. Ziz is Jack LaSota, and etc.

I think the net effect of having lots of "women raped two kids" headlines is to muddy the waters about the truth of the difference between male and female danger and capability. Sure, it may mention that woman was trans in the article, or you may be able to infer it. But it's pissing in the epistemic commons, and ultimately the point is to make it harder to object when someone pushes for policies which genuinely impinge on women in your life. I don't think bay area people have many children in general, so they don't have to worry about their daughters being forced to room with a weird male, or etc.

A political organization should stop using tools that favor its own side, because it sometimes needs to make subtle exceptions to better serve its cause?

Here's my recommendation: Stop treating political actors as neutral service providers. Newspapers, nowadays, are not apolitical stewards of information for the benefit of the public.

Here's my recommendation: Stop treating political actors as neutral service providers. Newspapers, nowadays, are not apolitical stewards of information for the benefit of the public.

How about the opposite: I'll loudly and conspicuously complain about how they aren't meeting the standards of neutral service providers. I can't think of a better way to convince people that newspapers, nowadays, are not apolitical stewards of information for the benefit of the public.

Why not advocate for newspapers to be better?

I like it when news organisations lean more into their 'present the facts' mode, even if they can never be (and have never been) truly neutral.

Because making them better is against the Geneva Suggestions?

This might be a question of personality, but I think they defected a little too hard to deserve any more trust. Newspaperem delendam esse. At least the central nodes, the big papers and publishers and all those who work for them, shouldn't be trusted anymore, because any return to neutrality would most likely be a short-lived survival measure, with a certain snap back into ideological mode as soon as they think they can get away with it. They're still the same people after all, and even if the changing times force them to be a little more demure, it won't change what they think and believe.

Does that imply you think there are some more smaller, neutral, non-ideological, trustworthy news orgs waiting in the wings? Perhaps I take the lesson of 'no one is neutral' as a more fundamental one.

There are some "news orgs" that explicitly make it their mission statement to be politically neutral, like Ground News and Allsides, but those are news aggregators, not reporters.

As for actual newspapers, doing their own research and writing their own stories without political bias - there should be some. Surely they can't all be bad apples. There must be some reporters reporting for reporting's sake, somewhere, who aren't deliberately selecting stories to serve some narrative.

But yes, if in doubt, mistrust and the assumption of ideological capture seem safer bets.

As for actual newspapers, doing their own research and writing their own stories without political bias - there should be some. Surely they can't all be bad apples.

The existence of newspapers which seek to avoid political bias (except for the pro-establishment bias that comes from the need to cultivate sources and any bias which comes from seeking sensationalism) is the result of a temporary and somewhat unusual situation in the American advertising market in the second half of the twentieth century. Founding era newspapers wore their partisan bias on their sleeves, as did the Hearst era yellow press. So does the press in most other countries - the only British paper that isn't proud of its political slant is the Financial Times.

The truth-forming function of the press is best delivered by ideological diversity, not by hoping that a journalistic monoculture is unbiased. The problem here is that you need your partisan journalists to be journalists first and partisan second (as, for example, Rupert Murdoch and his news outlets always have been) or else you end up with Pravda and Infowars shouting at each other.

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