site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   42715 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.

Gavin Newsom had a full podcast episode with Kirk earlier this year, and on Twitter he had this to say:

The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.

Banal. But, interestingly, on Bluesky he went much further:

We should all feel a deep sense of grief and outrage at the terrible violence that took place in Utah today. Charlie Kirk’s murder is sick and reprehensible, and our thoughts are with his family, children, and loved ones. I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate. His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence. The best way to honor Charlie's memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate — never through violence. Honest disagreement makes us stronger; violence only drives us further apart and corrodes the values at the heart of this nation.

This did not, shall we say, make the Bluesky folks happy. But I do find it interesting that he's targeting Bluesky in particular with that message.

Smart politicians should always be against political violence, because it is the norm of nonviolence which keeps their private security budget reasonable. The more divisive they are and the higher their profile is, the more they need to be against political violence.

That said, there are many politicians who are not smart, who think they can win elections by dunking on the opposition instead of engaging. So it is a little bit refreshing to see Gavin Newsom post this.

Basically every politician is denouncing violence.

What strikes me about Newsom is that he's kicking the hornets nest here. He's going on Bluesky and writing a more extended commentary on Kirk that is positive. There's an intentionality to it: he (or his intern) isn't simply duplicating the same Tweet across platforms.

I'm speculating that this is part of a broader strategy of making the nastier parts of the Left hate him. Instead of going hard left all the time, he wants to take a center track, with his bonafides fortified by the most distasteful parts of the Democratic coalition hating him. (Who knows if it will work, but there's a certain logic to it.)

But it's also good in itself: telling people that Kirk was not the devil incarnate and was a human being with real virtues seems like it's a first step in ratcheting down the place the country finds itself.

Simpler, more cynical answer: His initial "denounce violence" post was met with a bunch of people replying with the photo he staged of himself mocking Trump's assassination attempt, while holding a bottle of ketchup to imply it was staged. He's embarrassed enough to pretend to care.

But I'll at least give him that he knows the proper words to say, which is significantly above the bar for politicians anymore.

Politicians gonna politic. I know what's in Newsom's soul--a gaping abyss--but if he at least pivots to mouthing the right words, I'm happy.

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