site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   42409 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.

Proof? No. Enough evidence, when combined with his membership of the Republicans, to make the "most Westerners who want to shoot Donald Trump are SJWs" heuristic dubious? Yes.

As noted above, I wouldn't count Crooks toward either "side"'s tally. Just too many question marks. As also noted above, there are plenty of others whom I would count as "SJers trying to kill Trump".

Shacked up with a transsexual, wrote a bunch of leftist memes, and finally shot a right-wing public figure.

Sure, he happened to be signed up with the other party. But his actual active actions speak a much clearer language than that bit of buerocratic neglect (i.e., inaction, which comes easy).

Sure, he happened to be signed up with the other party.

Is he? The only specifics on this that I heard of was that he supposedly donated to the Trump campaign... except he didn't. Someone just found a guy in the donation record, with the same first and last name.

Last I heard the shooter was not signed up with any party.

Edit: although from the context it sounds like they're talking about the Trump shooter(s), not the Charlie Kirk one, I don't think either of them shacked up with a transsexual.

Ah, my bad. I just went off of the parent comment.

According to German news, the Charlie Kirk shooter was indeed shacked up with a transsexual, but YMMV on how trustworthy that tidbit is.

I was, indeed, talking about Thomas Crooks, the guy who shot Trump at a rally a year ago. We have a report of him being an outspoken conservative, and he registered as Republican in 2022, but a few months before that he'd donated a small amount to ActBlue, and he did, y'know, shoot Donald Trump, and AFAIK he didn't make any political posts on the 'Web to clear up what the hell's going on there, so I stick him in the "unknown" column rather than the "left-wing" or "right-wing" columns.

I think the Charlie Kirk murder screams Antifa, to the point that the only way it could be not Antifa would be if it were an outright false-flag trying to frame them - and even then, that's quite unlikely. But that wasn't the topic of discussion.

Are we good?

Yeah, absolutely. I didn't bother to read the comment chain properly, and so made a fool of myself.

Sorry, I meant "either of [the Trump ones]". The Kirk shooter shack-up is now reported all over the place, so I think it's true.

Enough evidence, when combined with his membership of the Republicans, to make the "most Westerners who want to shoot Donald Trump are SJWs" heuristic dubious? Yes.

Like I said, I think this is wrong -- you shoot the running right-wing Presidential candidate at a right-wing rally, you are doing left-wing violence unless (as with Hinkley) you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you... just wanted to shoot somebody famous, I guess? Prominent American Nazi Party connections, and Stormfront chat-logs about how Trump is a race-traitor would get you to "right-wing", but "general nutbar who picks a right-wing target" is not "centrist violence".

You've seen what that dataset looks like and how it's used -- the left-wing is not granting the same sort of charity to offenders of ambiguous personal politics who take on left-wing targets.

Anyways, my question was -- how many Trump assassination attempts were even in the data? You say there are only twelve incidents of left-wing violence left after your filter; you could just list them at this point?

You say there are only twelve incidents of left-wing violence left after your filter; you could just list them at this point?

I think you may be mistaking me for @MonkeyWithAMachinegun for some reason, because I didn't say that.

Ah sorry, I did -- like I said originally that number seems extraordinarily low despite given that there were plausibly (despite room for debate ofc) six qualifying incidents involving Trump alone!

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