site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   42660 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.

I'm pro-2A and own guns myself but there's a certain irony to outspoken 2A defenders being assassinated that's hard not to notice.

"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

I do wonder if his last thoughts were "shit. still worth it, though". You can count on conservatives to be ethically consistent when it comes to gun rights. I don't expect anyone on the right to talk about banning the rifle used to kill him.

There's a bit easier of a way to square the circle: even trivial consideration can give a pretty sizable laundry list of ways to kill someone from a long range, very messily, especially when half of your compatriots agree with you. Some of them are even easier to get away with!

Further information not available here.

He was also a defender of Israel's assassinations so he was pro gun and pro assassination.

The US elite is too protected from the consequences of their actions. The ones who voted for the Iraq war should be sent to the front. The defund the police proponents should be forced to walk the streets of st Louis at night without protection. The elites need to learn that they will be held accountable.

  • -12

He was also a defender of Israel's assassinations so he was pro gun and pro assassination.

This is silly. Being in favour of assassinating terrorists who wantonly murder civilians doesn't mean you're in favour of the general concept of assassination, or in favour of assassinating anyone you don't like.

The most recently highlighted instance of Israeli snipers targeting people was explicitly murdering a civilian - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/09/the-gaza-family-torn-apart-by-idf-snipers-from-chicago-and-munich

“That was my first elimination,” he says. The video, shot by a drone, lasts just a few seconds. The Palestinian teenager appears to be unarmed when he is shot in the head.

Raab, a former varsity basketball player from a Chicago suburb who became an Israeli sniper, concedes he knew that. He says he shot Salem simply because he tried to retrieve the body of his beloved older brother Mohammed.

“It’s hard for me to understand why he [did that] and it also doesn’t really interest me,” Raab says in a video interview posted on X. “I mean, what was so important about that corpse?”

I don't think it was a good thing that Charlie died but that doesn't mean he wasn't out there advocating for what happened to him to happen to others.

While not defending this soldier's conduct, I would put "snipers in a warzone" and "assassinations" in different categories. According to his testimony his decision to shoot the teenager was an impulsive, spur-of-the-moment one, which by definition means it wasn't an assassination.

He was pro assassination of murderers. What deadly attacks on innocents did Charlie Kirk plot?

I like your vibe in general but what consequences of his actions? Annoying speeches?

You can count on conservatives to be ethically consistent when it comes to gun rights. I don't expect anyone on the right to talk about banning the rifle used to kill him.

I'll admit to having been surprised by this post Butler. I immediately went out and bought an AR, thinking I might not be able to next week.

Now, naturally, I've bought several more for no apparent reason.

I immediately went out and bought an AR, thinking I might not be able to next week.

Does this ever work? If the gun actually was banned as a result, wouldn't you also need to turn in your already purchased ones?

I mean no one knows exactly what the ban would look like prior to it actually occurring. But the federal assault weapons ban of the Clinton era did not involve any confiscation or turn in process, if you owned one purchased a week before the bill passed it was yours. Ditto the NFA in the 1920s, though I believe it did impose the tax stamp process on machine guns.

I was under the impression that this doesn't happen nowadays. I don't think, for instance, that when the bump stock ban was imposed you were allowed to keep your existing bump stocks.

I mean sure it's possible, but the most recent identical ban at the federal level did not feature confiscation. And confiscation would be pretty impractical on balance. There's a chance of confiscation, and a chance of non-confiscation, but considering scenarios, for me the outcomes look something like:

No Ban: I bought a gun I always kind of wanted or intended to buy anyway, maybe for a little more money or with a little less research than I otherwise would have. Not that bad an outcome.

Ban, no confiscation: I have a gun that I wanted and intended to purchase, which I otherwise would not be able to buy.

Ban, confiscation: I lose the gun.

Ban, TSHTF and TEOTWAWKI as a result of trying to confiscate 10,000,000 firearms from unfriendly owners: Boy, sure glad I have this thing today.

No Purchase: I have a few hundred dollars I wouldn't otherwise have.

Leaving aside internet tough-guy memes about boating accidents.

Obviously you can put your own values and probabilities in here and get a lot of outcomes, but the whole thing was pretty marginal to me. I didn't move heaven and earth to do it, I drove up the road a couple miles and I spent a day's earnings.

It did in 33 (and 86) and in 94, that's why it happens so much today. Everything already out there stayed out there and started to appreciate.

Not if they were lost or sold in the meantime...

I think about this sometimes. Whatever else can be said, a large store of dark rifles remaining in the wild would rapidly lose any meaningful import as the people who know how to use them cycle out and the next generation cannot be trained.

as the people who know how to use them cycle out and the next generation cannot be trained.

I feel like if this statement were completely true, Iraq and Afghanistan would have gone a lot differently.

Black rifles are primarily useful as a political rallying and coordination point, not for their (considerable) efficacy in a rebellion against the government. Their absence does not significantly impede such a rebellion.

Black rifles are primarily useful as a political rallying and coordination point

Which is why gun rights will continue to get slowly eroded by salami-slicing instead of mass confiscation, so as to ensure this coordination point — AFAICT the only one the Red Tribe has — never gets tripped. They can oppress us into extinction all they want, just by avoiding that one big, shiny tripwire.

their (considerable) efficacy in a rebellion against the government. Their absence does not significantly impede such a rebellion.

[Citation needed]

I can't buy one, nor can I buy a magazine with 11 or more rounds.

Fuck me, I guess.

Now, naturally, I've bought several more for no apparent reason.

What do you mean no apparent reason? You need one with a short barrel for close quarters defense and another set up for long-range precision with a scope. Also one in camo pattern for hunting. Oh yeah, also a spare, in case a friend is visiting when the social fabric collapses and they need to borrow it. Or in case you have one down for maintenance.

Or if I'm browsing an auction of a firearms collection and there are several cheap ARs sitting at a $5.00 opening bid, and I want to get things going because the auctioneer is an old family friend, so I put in a bid for $150 on all five of them, there's no way they'll go that cheap but I want to get the action started and get the price up, and I'm figuring that there's absolutely no way I'll end up with more than one of them and I don't have time to watch the auction live. And then the auction ends and I wind up with three of them for an average price of $60 each plus vig. I guess that's kind of a reason.

Which auction site? I own many guns, but all bought at stores.

It was a local auction house running operations through hibid, local pickup from our neighborhood gun store only.

Relatable.

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