site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   32869 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.

In the chaos of the Charlie Kirk shooting, a lot of people forgot about the weirdness of the multiple arrests.

Apropos of nothing, I'd like to talk about a tangent that I picked up on in Patel's Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing today. He was directly asked by Senator Kennedy if there was the possibility that the shooter wasn't working alone. Patel said there were a number of individuals currently being investigated and interrogated by the Feds.

I'm pretty much caught up on the trans partner and their chat logs, but it seems like the FBI is doing a deeper dive into some of the other connections. Perhaps other users in the Discord channel of interest?

Does anyone else have anything on accomplices? Does the idea of the trans partner knowing nothing about the shooting seem a little suspect? I know the partner is apparently an AnCap follower of Jordan Peterson and immediately cooperated with the police, but the text logs seem a little off. Particularly when combined with an 'IT WAS ME!' note left by the shooter under his keyboard for his partner to find.

Edit: Additional links

I know the partner is apparently an AnCap follower of Jordan Peterson

Wait, what?

Hoo boy. I don't have a solid link to confirm that, as referencing /pol/ is like pointing at yesterday's sandcastle on the beach.

Best I can do with the Peterson reference is this. I've got nothing for the AnCap thing, but you could do a deep dive on the partner's suspected reddit account history if you have a real interest in this.

Also it was in 2020-21. I don't think 'Guy reads Jordan Peterson 5 years ago then re-pivots over to the Left side' is some historically unprecedented swerve plus I assume a lot of terminally online people have 'Arm the babies with assault rifles to defend themselves from abortions' radical centrism.

Yeah I agree, it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Someone in their early 20's can change their views a lot from when they were 18. I'm not trying to focus on the partner's political point of view as much as their trans identity and the possibility their 'innocence' was deliberately telegraphed by actions pre-planned with the shooter.

I mean, how do you surprise your live in romantic partner with a political assassination? They really didn't see any signs?

I mean, how do you surprise your live in romantic partner with a political assassination?

The same way you surprise everybody else: keep your mouth shut and your material hidden? We are here on the Devil Sacrament three principled libertarians and a zillion witches website; I know some people here share everything with their SO, but we do realize that it's not the only option, right?

I never really considered that users might be 'hiding their power level' from their spouses. Sounds exhausting, but considering the amount of polarisation in Western political discourse, its not that surprising.

I mean check out the graphs of growing divide between women and men.

They are starting to be separate circles with little overlap, many women on dating websites make clear their political affiliation, and most high quality men pay lip service only to progressive politics if they acknowledge it at all. Anyone who still wants to date has to lie a bit.

Historically women have been willing to take on or ignore the politics of their partner a bit more, we'll see if that stays true....if it doesn't......

They are starting to be separate circles with little overlap, many women on dating websites make clear their political affiliation, and most high quality men pay lip service only to progressive politics if they acknowledge it at all. Anyone who still wants to date has to lie a bit.

Is this mostly an American thing? I have come across this in Australia, but its thankfully rare and any girl putting 'don't contact me if X is your politics' is doing both of us a favour. (Where X is almost invariably right wing views)

Most people here just don't talk about politics that much and if they do, they only do so briefly when dating.

I certainly pretend to be a disinterested centrist when dating, unless I think the girl genuinely aligns with my views.

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