site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   42374 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.

Something a little entertaining, after the current storm of words and views and blame being passed around and people joking and rejoicing about the Kirk assassination.

A few days before, I wouldn't have thought of this as light-hearted fun, but goodness me, reality is very surprising.

Kamala Harris has a new book out and guess what, she's not happy with the Biden(s) administration, and former Biden administration munchkins are not happy with her not being happy.

When Fox News attacked me on everything from my laugh, to my tone of voice, to whom I’d dated in my 20s, or claimed I was a “DEI hire,” the White House rarely pushed back with my actual résumé: two terms elected D.A., top cop in the second-largest department of justice in the United States, senator representing one in eight Americans.

Lorraine Voles, my chief of staff, constantly had to advocate for my role at events: “She’s not going to stand there like a potted plant. Give her two minutes of remarks. Have her introduce the president.”

They had a huge comms team; they had Karine Jean-Pierre briefing in the pressroom every day. But getting anything positive said about my work or any defense against untrue attacks was almost impossible.

Ordinarily, this would have been a great chance to chew over the election once more, and indeed the election before it. If Kamala had doubts about Biden running for a second time, why didn't she say more about that? She does give a sort of explanation about that - it would have been perceived as disloyal. "Yeah, but" is the rejoinder there. Was it about loyalty, or was it about personal ambition? Get on the wrong side of the Bidens, and kiss goodbye to any chance of running for president herself?

“It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.” We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.

Many people want to spin up a narrative of some big conspiracy at the White House to hide Joe Biden’s infirmity. Here is the truth as I lived it. Joe Biden was a smart guy with long experience and deep conviction, able to discharge the duties of president. On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump on his best. But at 81, Joe got tired. That’s when his age showed in physical and verbal stumbles. I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the West Coast for a Hollywood fundraiser. I don’t believe it was incapacity. If I believed that, I would have said so. As loyal as I am to President Biden, I am more loyal to my country.

I was well aware of my delicate status. Lore has it that every outgoing chief of staff always tells the incoming president’s chief of staff Rule No. 1: Watch the VP. Because I’d gone after him over busing in the 2019 primary debate, I came into the White House with what we lawyers call a “rebuttable presumption.” I had to prove my loyalty, time and time again.

She claims White House staffers were out to get her:

Worse, I often learned that the president’s staff was adding fuel to negative narratives that sprang up around me. One narrative that took a stubborn hold was that I had a “chaotic” office and unusually high staff turnover during my first year.

Some of those staffers do come back with "yeah, she was chaotic and useless as VP".

One former Biden administration member sounded off on Harris in comments made to Axios, arguing that the former vice president’s own deficiencies were the problem.

“Vice President Harris was simply not good at the job,” they said. “She had basically zero substantive role in any of the administration’s key work streams, and instead would just dive bomb in for stilted photo ops that exposed how out of depth she was.”

“[President Biden was] not the reason she struggled in office or tanked her 2019 [presidential] campaign,” they continued. “Or lost the 2024 campaign, for that matter. The independent variable there is the vice president, not Biden or his aides.”

So the question is, whither Harris now? She seems to have ruled out running for governor of California, so does that mean she is getting ready to put herself forward again in 2028? But will that work - given the split as above between her camp and the Biden camp - and does Joe have enough remaining support in the party to put the kibosh on her, or is he completely gone and she's trying to put distance between herself and the Biden White House ("it wasn't my fault! they didn't support me! I was afraid to speak up! Jill was the tyrant queen!") in order to scrub the memory of the failed campaign?

With Newsom positioning himself strongly as a potential candidate (see the copying Trump's social media style and him being more aggressive on lefty policy, moving back to the centre) does she have a chance, or will it be Hillary Clinton Part Deux: Three Times A Loser?

Arguing over "whither the Democratic Party with regard to Harris?" is way more small potatoes than in the wake of the assassination. Just something to let us all take our minds off heated topics for a bit.

Pete Buttigieg ought to be the natural successor but in an absurd twist of fate he will never get the chance due to the ZERO PERCENT support among black voters. It’s amazing that in 2025 dems favourite sacred cows still won’t budge an inch on the gays. Or is that Pete is just too much a dorky white kid that you would want to bully in school? Or (the sixth grader in me says) does his last name just sound too much like Buttsex? Questions to ponder

It’s amazing that in 2025 dems favourite sacred cows still won’t budge an inch on the gays.

Rephrase that as 'their two sacred cows can't get along'.

This is the inherent problem with the coalition of the fringes. Many fringe groups are not buddies and do not like each other.

I'd say @Magusoflight's got it right, in reflecting that blacks have much higher ipdol social credit scores than gays. One can think of it as an intercept adjustment, where the black-white coefficient is much larger than the gay-straight coefficient.

After all, a large segment of gays are white men, and gay white men are the white men of gay people. This can be seen in how progressives ignore that black men are disproportionate perpetrators of violent crime against the G and even T of the LGBT. An example would be the Etute-Smith case, where there was largely crickets from progressives when a black college football player (Etute) beat a gay—possibly transwoman—white man (Smith) to death:

  • Etute was catfished on Tinder by Smith into going over to his apartment for oral sex in the dark

  • Afterward, Etute's teammates teased Etute and/or expressed concern that Smith may had been a man (including those who chatted with Smith and almost entered Smith's apartment but got sketched out and bailed)

  • A month later after the first encounter, Etute went back with a teammate to Smith's to either: "If [Smith] was a man, they would run, Etute testified. If [Smith] was a woman, another sexual liaison might occur. Either way, he'd have closure."

  • At some point after Etute entered the apartment and discovered Smith was a man, Smith was beaten and later died

  • Upon arrest and interview, Etute confessed to the beating (while not knowing Smith died) and did not allude to any self-defense story

  • In trial, the Defense proffered a self-defense narrative based on Smith's history of catfishing predominantly young black men (which, presumably, the Defense implied is a worse offense than catfishing young non-black men) and a knife hidden under Smith's bed (which Etute did not know about)

  • Etute was acquitted by jury

Wondering about makeup of that jury. Was it a “jury of peers” so to speak? I could see them definitely being sympathetic

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