site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34468 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 15, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why are these people paid so much for such mediocre jokes and commentary. Random people on twitter have better insights for free. Yeah, I get the economic argument (people tune in to see him deliver the jokes, not a random person), but the occupation of 'late night TV host' has long outlived its usefulness .CBS balking at paying $40 million a year for Colbert is an indication of this.

If such a big figure can fall, who will be next?

These people are surprisingly expendable. Many celebs were axed during Trump's first term. We're not talking Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, or Sam Altman here , where a trillion dollar company hinges on the directive of a single person. Right wing cancel culture, like the doge cuts, is much more methodical , thorough and organized than haphazard like how the left does it . They , the left, forgot the mass cancellations during the 2001-2006 about Iraq, 9/11 and so on, like Bill Maher's 9/11 comment that led to his cancellation. They got too cocky. It's like, "we're cancelling everyone to make up for the past 10 years"

Even before this event I had been thinking on whether 'late show' hosts were just a redundant dying breed now.

The original idea was that broadcast channels needed to fill airtime after their big, expensive shows finished airing, right? Kids are probably in bed, audience is getting sleepy and winding down. Need some 'light' entertainment that isn't costly to produce and flexible, mostly unscripted. Get a guy that's good at improv, interviews, and generally is charismatic, line up popular guests, give them a band, stuff a live audience in there.

Now, of course, people can watch whatever television programs they want, whenever, as late as they want. Livestreamers put on low-cost, light entertainment programs tailored to exactly whatever audience they target.

Okay, celebrity interviews are still kind of exclusive, but there's many other outlets for those too now.

At this point, a host would need to be particularly talented in some way to capture audiences attention from whatever else they could be watching. Or have an extremely loyal audience. I'm not saying they go away now, but maybe the format has to change a lot, and they're no longer the cultural force with the ability to demand high salaries anymore.

Only time I watch late shows these days is if I'm in a hotel and they charge money for internet service. Then I can flip on the TV and 'channel surf' (man, remember that?) to see if they're doing anything interesting.

On the other hand, shows that have LONG outlived their relevance (IMHO) like Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune are going pretty strong.

I think the real value of a famous host on a talk show run by a major network is that they can book a higher tier of guests. I watch Bill Maher (who is on HBO now, incidentally) because he can have a panel made up of, like, a major intellectual, a Senator, and Snoop Dogg, and have them all give off-the-cuff remarks on the issues of the week. In that sense, their only real value is in that they're big enough to attract guests with star power.

There are streamers with huge audiences that can swing celebrity guests these days.

Adin Ross got Donald Trump himself.

On the other hand, shows that have LONG outlived their relevance (IMHO) like Jeopardy

How so? At the very least, Jeopardy! will (and must) remain relevant until I’ve had my opportunity to compete on the show. And then, if I do well enough to be invited to any future in-show tournaments, its relevance will continue going strong indefinitely.

Yeah, I was going to say, Jeopardy isn't over until Hoff gets his day behind the podium.

Hey, one of my puzzle-hunting acquaintances (Paolo Pasco) is currently on a win streak!

He seems formidable! The puzzle-making background seems to really help him on wordplay categories, anagrams, etc.

Definitely! I suspect being a two-time American Crossword Puzzle Tournament champion doesn't hurt, either.

This is the lovable sort of self-confidence/smug/humor that, well, I love.

Thanks for the smile.

As a classically liberal centrist, that really pissed me off when he got cancelled. I'm someone who cares about truth, and people's ability to tell the truth without punishment, and I don't think he should be punished for casually remarking that the terrorists weren't cowards. But the thing is, I don't think the left was rallying behind him at that time, though maybe I was too young to remember. I feel like that's an issue that aligned more with centrist/libertarian values than either left or right.

The viewership has decreased, but many people still find these shows to be a comfy way to unwind at the end of the day. It's not so much about the insights, it's about the warm fuzzy feeling of listening to the same person over and over again, and with many of the hosts, also the warm fuzzy feeling of having one's political beliefs reaffirmed. The target audience are not the kind of people who are highly online and so watch Hasan or Nick Fuentes or whoever instead to get their comfy unwinding and their political affirmation. It's kind of like asking why a bunch of people watch CNN or FOX news even though there are a bunch of people online who provide equally entertaining political content. Just a different demographic.

As for why they get paid so much. Well, my hunch is that it's just because mainstream media is notoriously conservative in their economic decisions. Just like they pump out endless remakes and sequels, they also would rather stick with a known host and pay him a lot of money than risk trying to elevate some relative unknown to the same position. This might not work for too much longer, but it worked for a long time.

The viewership has decreased, but many people still find these shows to be a comfy way to unwind at the end of the day.

Ultimately, though, that is pretty much the reason why these hosts are being cancelled. It's become clear to top execs since last november that Trump's supporters, even if they can't see them in their filter bubbles, are real people that exist and are not consuming their product. Late Night shows are supposed to be comfy, to everyone. Sure, the efforts they had done to be fairer since the election, on their own, wouldn't be enough to bring back Republicans, not for a few years at least. But when these media execs see one of their star hosts saying very un-comfy things about half the country, what's going through their mind is probably some variation on "No fucking wonder they want nothing to do with us!"

Those viewers aren't coming back. NFL football ratings bounced back after dropping the politics stuff, but that was because there was massive demand for the product and no real substitute.

Sure. Agreement with this is more, not less, market reason to cancel.

Media market analytics tends to go by national/regional demographics, not partisan demographics. Flat cost decisions (such as hiring) that might make sense if you view yourself in a 320 million market make a bit less sense if you're in a 'merely' 160 million market due to a political filter.

If the 160 lost market might be recovered, you fire the excess and bring in new help. But if the 160 market can't be recovered, you still fire the excess.

I don't know, I think there's a demand for that kind of show, something that everyone could discuss together that isn't fiction, that reminds people that they are part of an actual nation with a shared culture, and not just participants in an economic opportunity zone.

Maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember how it felt that TV was a shared experience rather than something everyone did separately and the younger generations have no interest in it.

How’s Red Eye on fox doing?

I remember that Maher joke/statement. He was absolutely on point.

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