site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   33812 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.

The House adopts a resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk; 95 Democrats voted "yes", 58 voted "no", 38 voted "present".

Were I in a position to do so, would I vote to acquiesce to the left's request to honor one of their slain heroes? A George Floyd or a Joseph Rosenbaum, or perhaps a historical figure like Lenin or Mao? It seems that two distinct answers are in order.

The first answer is: yes, of course, "by default". I would be happy to vote yes "by default", with a taciturn attitude, as an expression of my own amiable and magnanimous nature, and out of a want of avoiding the appearance of pettiness. I can't deny that such a gesture would be a matter of pride, an attempt to introduce my own form of "unruliness" into the proceedings...

But supposing we wanted something more than a "default" course of action, something we could fully assent to in good conscience? Supposing then?

I admit to possessing a certain degree of permeability; there is hardly a passion amongst my enemies that cannot inspire a concomitant passion within me, if it is expressed and held rightly (allowing that "rightly" for me is "wrongly" for a great many others). I want to know that it means something to you. I want to know that anything at all means anything to you. Then we can walk together, if only for a time. It is not the expression of raw untrammeled sentiment, nor is it the expression of a rational program of means and ends, but rather it is something that threads the needle of navigating the Scylla and Charybdis and excavates the unnameable space between them. (Don't take this as an invitation to pen your own panegyrics; I have not the talent to evaluate them, I'm in no state to hear confessions, not me... the most I can do for anyone is to remind them of the proper standards of decorum, to gesture insistently that the question must be treated with an appropriate amount of respect...)

The primary distinction for me is not between good and evil, or purity and corruption, but between the ensouled and the soulless. The indifference with which this concept is often treated is simply more proof to me that the distinction has, in fact, latched onto something real. Undoubtedly, many of my enemies and I walk the same path; and conversely, anyone on my "side" who lacks the requisite sense of aesthetics is an ally of convenience only, and not someone who could be counted on to genuinely relieve me of my loneliness.

In case people are wondering, here is the actual text. Draw your own conclusions as you will.

For me the actual "resolution" part seems pretty tame, as does most of the description of Kirk, so I assume opposition is mostly either a vibes thing, or worry about upsetting the base. Interestingly enough, it does go on at much greater length than the comparatively sparse and bland Senate's resolution, which is rare for something penned by the usually insufferable Mike Lee.

This seems very reasonable and non-partisan. It doesn't mention Democrats or Republicans, and directly acknowledges that division and political violence is wrong regardless of ideology.

Something about this situation, probably the clear-cut "violence against speech" and reaction, makes me unusually sympathetic. I disagree with most of Charlie Kirk's ideas and share the perspective that his "debates" were performative and one-sided, but since the assassination, I feel only respect for the man himself. And I can't be the only one: that people should challenge their assumptions, hold fair and respectful discussions, and never respond to speech with violence, those are ideas that I was taught in school, and that I've always believed are liberal (and still do, though "liberal" is different from "leftist" and "Blue Tribe"). I'm not the only one who's said or written something like this. I suspect some of the Democrats voting "yes", even being politicians, are doing it not just for appearance but with genuine conviction.

Charlie Kirk's actions that the left didn't like were speeches and political activism--the kind of things that we are supposed to accept as part of a free society even if we don't agree with them. Lenin, Mao, Joseph Rosenbaum, and George Floyd's actions that the right (or anyone) didn't like were not.

George Floyd's death was not a result of a political assassination. This is an important distinction. Nor was he really anyone anybody knew about. Heather Heyer might have had a better claim. But honestly, the best comparison is probably MLK as there are few instances to choose from. Would you hold a moment of silence for him?

Christian, non-violent, tragically shot. I might not agree with everything he wished for but it'd be impolite not to memorialize him

Non-violent is overrated. Activists try to pretend that nonviolent is the same thing as nonharmful, and have invented very clever ways to harm people for a cause without being "violent".

Also, nonviolence harms everyone because a lot of nonviolence depends on taking advantage of other people's reluctance to use violence to prevent harm. That encourages violence in society and is a form of destroying the commons. It also involves media manipulation, which is a fancy word for lying (which is of course a nonviolent act).

Remember that debanking Covid protestors in Canada was an act of nonviolence. (Actually, so is debanking anyone.)

From the point of view of Progressivism, Kirk was profoundly harmful to society. He successfully advocated for views which were obviously wrong, and likely did so while knowing he was wrong. He was a persistent purveyor of disinformation. Even supposing that he did not understand the fascist nature of the views he espoused (which he likely did in private), enacting his political and cultural ideals would, in fact, result in fascism. Preventing fascism is the most important goal of democracy, and Kirk was daily working to undermine that. His kind of political activism was inherently illegitimate, since it sought, wittingly or not, to demolish liberal democracy and its protection of minorities. Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue. Kirk did far more harm to society than most "violent" criminals locked up in prison, and yet he was allowed to walk free and spread his hateful ideas unchecked. That he was typically polite cannot hide that his ideas were inherently hateful. Kirk was "nonviolent", but he was the propaganda arm of a system that every day uses violence to control marginalized people. Without people like Kirk, that system of violence cannot survive, and so Kirk is responsible for a great deal of systemic injustice.

Preventing fascism is the most important goal of democracy

Ensuring frequent peaceful transfer of power is the most important goal of democracy. Then maintaining the legitimacy of the system. Then ensuring that the representatives represent the people.

Preventing fascism is nice, but probably not even in the top 5 goals of democracy, and arguably not a goal of democracy per se at all.

Yes, I mean this is the central disagreement, and sadly I’m not sure it is possible to bridge this divide. Most people agree that if you were in Germany in 1928 that assassinating important Nazi activists would be justified, given foreknowledge of what was to come. So the question sort of becomes, are Trump/Charlie Kirk/2025 American Republicans comparable to Nazis in terms of the threat they pose? Of course I think this is an absurd comparison, but it seems like a substantial portion of the left believes at least semi-sincerely the answer to that question is “yes.” It is a divide that I’m not sure how to bridge. If I were speaking to someone like this I don’t even know where I would begin attempting to dismantle this. We’ve been inhabiting totally isolated media ecosystems for 10+ years at this point

given foreknowledge of what was to come.

This is not given. Neither then nor now.

Most people agree that if you were in Germany in 1928 that assassinating important Nazi activists would be justified, given foreknowledge of what was to come.

Justified? Maybe, depending on your moral framework.* But wise? Much less clear. Assassinating MLK didn't reduce public support for his ideals, and it doesn't look like it's going to work out for Kirk's killer either. I doubt it'd have been helpful in interwar Germany either; the capacity to stand up to the communists' political violence was a major selling point for the Nazis. I don't think raising the salience of the subject would have been a winning move.

(Killing Hitler, I think, is much more defensible. He really was the driving force behind much of the Nazi's objectionable behavior. But Kirk wasn't a politician.)

* Not necessarily easily. I think the above compels a good Utilitarian to say it's not justified. (Well, maybe a false flag attack on people you agree with is...) And it'd have to be an odd sort of deontology that recommends killing activists on the basis of what their ideals will lead to in the future. I guess you could believe that 'spreading hate' or some such is worthy of death per se without reference to the consequences?

Killing Hitler, I think, is much more defensible. He really was the driving force behind much of the Nazi's objectionable behavior.

With the right deontology and with hindsight, then sure it's defensible; there's a point at which one loses the right to life, probably even before they reach "faking casus belli to start wars of conquest" and "genocide".

But from a utilitarian perspective this a frightening coin flip. There was a wide wave of pent-up rage in inter-war Germany, and whoever replaced Hitler would still have to surf most of that wave, every part that Hitler wasn't solely responsible for instigating. If the replacement was far less evil maybe that would lead to toning down the rhetoric, wars, and genocide; if the replacement was just a little more competent maybe that would lead to to an indefinitely Nazi-controlled Europe that chose to consolidate its defenses while it was ahead instead of launching Barbarossa.

Assassinating Nazi activists or officials in 1928 would’ve most likely resulted in the following:

  • Increased attention and sympathy for the Nazis on the part of more moderate nationalists who’d otherwise not have harbored such sentiments, at least not to a significant degree

  • Increased overall hostility towards, or at least increased alienation from, whatever political force the assassins belonged to

Who the hell knows? People may as well have looked down on the nazis for failing to defend their own. Or cheered for them getting killed. 1920s Germany was a society at war with itself.

More comments

I’m in the same boat, albeit from an opposing political valence. Where to even start?

What do you expect to happen over the next few years? Make concrete predictions, and note what evidence could falsify your beliefs. Then watch what happens. There's no other way to solve the epistemic problem available.

I have made some (relatively) concrete predictions on here before.

Hoping I’m wrong on them.

Please allow us commoners to see the post.

From the point of view of Progressivism, Kirk was profoundly harmful to society.

I think you responded to the wrong post.

But anyway, it's not "did he do bad things" or "did he cause harm". Everyone thinks their political opponents do bad things! It's that he did things that are acceptable ways of spreading ideas in a democracy. Whether these things are harmful is irrelevant here.

It's that he did things that are acceptable ways of spreading ideas in a democracy.

I don't think progressives believe that anymore. His ideas were unacceptable in a democracy, and so there is no acceptable way to spread them, and so Kirk's political activism was illegitimate. They do appear to sincerely believe this, and that illegitimate political activism is an acceptable, or perhaps even inevitable, target for violent push back. After all, if you're going to oppress people with words (no sarcasm), don't be surprised when they fight back.

But honestly, the best comparison is probably MLK as there are few instances to choose from. Would you hold a moment of silence for him?

I think the issue is that most of us, Left, Right or Radical Centrist, grew up in a world where we were told MLK was basically a saint our whole lives. It's trivial for somebody with that background to say they'd hold a moment of silence for him in 2025.

We're in a very different position from the people in 1963 who were watching things like the March on Washington with fresh eyes, and who might have validly feared that 250,000 black people marching on the nation's capitol was an implicit threat to anglo-American culture and values at the time, and not just in a straightforwardly racist or xenophobic way. Even if MLK himself was intentionally non-violent, I think a lot of people living through his rise to prominence were scared of the downstream effects of what he was advocating for.

The question of holding a moment of silence for him in 1968 would have been in a vastly different political context than asking the same question today.

Sure.

Sure.

Sure.

Ick. I'm on record elsewhere as being in favour of applying tit-for-tat cancel culture to some degree but I draw the line at these emotive 'if you don't say what we want you to say right now you're a murderer' kinds of proposals. Not openly celebrating Kirk's death or saying he deserved it right afterwards is a reasonable ask. Feeling the right emotion on command - or pretending to against your will for political reasons - is not.

Yeah, I'd probably vote 'present' or whatever the neutral response is. Just the usual clown show nothingburger motion at the circus.

If someone came after me for neither supporting or opposing, I'd just shrug until they went away.

The primary distinction for me is not between good and evil, or purity and corruption, but between the ensouled and the soulless. The indifference with which this concept is often treated is simply more proof to me that the distinction has, in fact, latched onto something real. Undoubtedly, many of my enemies and I walk the same path; and conversely, anyone on my "side" who lacks the requisite sense of aesthetics is an ally of convenience only, and not someone who could be counted on to genuinely relieve me of my loneliness.

The wise philosopher, Shoe0nhead once said, "Personally, I'd rather live in a world full of Charlie Kirks who would sit down and debate than a world full of people who agree with me but would murder people who don't."

I've never seen Shoe look as serious, and as distressed, as in her latest video. Things are getting bad.

Yeah she was actually on the verge of tears at one point. This whole thing genuinely got to her.

For reference, the video is here.

It was very strange. I do think she is overreacting, but the video crystalized for me why the reaction to Kirk's assassination has been so disproportionate. Every media personality and politics influencer to the right of Ezra Klein either knew Charlie personally or is close to someone who knew Charlie personally. That impacts their rhetoric. It impacts their state of mind. People are a lot more willing to throw the constitution in the trash when their friend is murdered than when state politician #586 is killed. I think the liberals are right that this is "unfair" in some abstract sense, but that's just how the world works.

willing to throw the constitution in the trash

What are you referring to please?

I think a lot of moderate Breadtubers and influencers are really anxious right now. Because they're thinking 'if the current political climate is one where moderates are being shot by their political opponents, how safe am I?'

Women often overreact.

But in Shoe's case, I think she's right to do so, in that social media influencers - especially political ones - receive death threats on a daily, perhaps hourly basis. You develop a thick skin for such things - you have to, if you want to keep your sanity - but even a slight increase in the probability of the threats being carried through suddenly gives that torrent a terrifying valence.

She has a child, and a husband, that she very much does not want to leave, and I think she is deserving of sympathy. The fact that Kirk was young and similarly at the beginning of starting a family makes it personal to her. Women are empathetic in that way.

Which, I'd guess, is also why when state politician #586 is killed, the resolution honouring her and condemning the killings gets passed unanimously. No toxoplasma.

I've seen a few of her recent videos and found myself agreeing with her, so either I've become more liberal (doubtful) or she's moved more towards the centre (probable).

I think her reaction here is "Wait. I thought we were the good side. The compassionate side, the tolerant side, the side that tried to understand and accept despite differences? Not like the fanatics and crazies and bad people on the other side? And here are my people cheering a murder and calling for more murders, and the people they want murdered are 'fascists' and hey, that's me! I've been called a fascist!"

It's always a shock to find people you admire, or are on the same broad lines of identifying with, turning out to say and do and admire horrible shit.

I don't think it's just being 2 degrees of separation away from a murder victim. Some of the online commentators I watch, including Shoe, feel like their life is genuinely at risk now, because it's seemingly within the Overton window to both say "fascists should be shot", and "this person I don't like is a fascist, trust me". She lists a huge number of things that people have accused her of being fascist for.

But I do think you're right that she's overreacting; vivid news like this makes extremely rare events seem much more likely. Rationally, I don't think we're anywhere close to normalizing political murder, even if we're taking some steps in that direction.

because it's seemingly within the Overton window to both say "fascists should be shot", and "this person I don't like is a fascist, trust me".

But this has been the case for at least ten years, and the so-called "fascists" remained remarkably unshot until about a week ago. There is a sense in which politics has become higher stakes now, but that is a function of the underlying reality, not a function of the words we use to describe that reality. I think it's far more likely that Tyler Robinson was pushed over the edge by the (AFAICT accurate) report that the DOJ was considering a ban on transgenders owning firearms than he was by people on the internet calling Republicans "fascists" or "Nazis" instead of less offensive terms like "stupid" or "insensitive".

Keep in mind that Charlie Kirk might be the most assassinatable conservative in modern history. His whole schtick was going into hostile territory at universities across the country and holding open-air events in locations with great sniper cover and sightlines.

But this has been the case for at least ten years, and the so-called "fascists" remained remarkably unshot until about a week ago.

Ehhhhhhhh...

"Opposing Obamacare is Killing People!" -> Congresional Baseball shooting where, but for the grace of God and Hodgkinson's bad aim, a nontrivial part of the GOP congressional caucus could have been killed.

"Opposing BLM/supporting Trump is fascist!" -> Killing of Aaron Danielson, the kidnapping and torture of a white mentally-disabled person (incidentally, I just found out when digging this back up that the animals who did this all got less than 10 years in prison and one only got 4 years' probation and 200 hours of community service, and I'm horrified all over again), and having a philosophy professor bash your head with a bike lock.

"Right-wingers should be killed!" -> Killing of Cayler Ellison

And that's just the obvious cases that actually made the media - there's plenty more attempts and foiled plots, including the two attempt on Trump during the 2020 campaign, the wacko who flew out from California to try and kill Justice Kavanaugh, the "Ruth Sent Us" firebombings, BLM riots, etc.

It's not like it's all been sunshine and roses out there.

You could add the 'ICE is disappearing people like gestapa!' -> 4th of July attack on ICE in Texas.

gestapa

Gestapo.

More comments

But this has been the case for at least ten years, and the so-called "fascists" remained remarkably unshot until about a week ago.

Widespread, public, and celebratory cheering by left partisans also remained absent until about a week ago. Now it is here, and it is public knowledge that there is a non-trivial degree of revolutionary chic and social support for shooting the evil [capitalist]/[fascist]/[etc.].

One of the noted points of the rise of the Columbine Shooting copycat school shootings was that even unambiguously evil things can be popular/inspirational in their own right, and that popularity (a) isn't degraded by official condemnation, and (b) spreads memetically to copycats. Almost every school kid knows a school bully, or an oppressive school system, or some other grievance, and getting to get even and go out in a blaze of glory is still echoed to this day. Including, not so long ago, the trans-student shooting a christian school.

Charlie Kirk's assassination is far more likely to be part of a trend than an outlier before a return to the status quo. Anti-fascist political violence is a cultural artifact of the further-left ideologies, and cultural artifacts tend to be iceberg dynamics where far more mass is hidden below view, as opposed to potholes that are soon passed.

I wouldn't vote for a resolution honoring anyone. I think Congress should focus on legislating, not on assessing the worth of individuals and voting on whether to honor them or not.

I have even more reason to dislike these resolutions given that they allow either side of the left/right political divide to attempt gotcha political moves to put their opponents into traps. For example: "Here's this person who died, you would have to be a ghoul not to vote to honor them! You're not a ghoul, are you???".

Congress is reduced to rubber-stamping a yearly budgetary bill larded up to the gills: what else are they going to do with their free time?

It's less "is reduced" and more 'reduced itself'. Perhaps they can un-reduce themselves.

Hopefully, figure out how to not be reduced to rubber-stamping a yearly budgetary bill larded up to the gills. But they probably don't have much incentive to do that.

Revealed preferences; they all clearly much prefer to be bush-league TV pundits than actual participants in the day-to-day business of governing.

bush-league TV pundits

W or Bush Senior?

Jeb!

I’d avoid doing stuff like thins simply because I don’t actually believe it’s sincere in this case. There hasn’t yet, to my knowledge been anyone pushing back on the left leaning side against the “white nationalist Christian nationalist, or fascism” rhetoric, and im talking about pretty big names on the left. They want to take credit in some sense for being the humane guys, but then they aren’t willing to do, well, anything up to and including banning people on left leaning media or social media for saying stuff like “we have 400 days to save democracy” or trying to sneak in “yes shooting him in the neck was bad but he didn’t like trans people or immigrants so he doesn’t deserve sympathy.” If you can’t full stop say “we have to tone down our rhetoric to prevent violence,” there’s no waters edge to be had. It’s simply using the name for marketing.

A George Floyd or a Joseph Rosenbaum, or perhaps a historical figure like Lenin or Mao?

It will be fairer question about voting if you list a figure like Kirk from the Dems side.

Name whoever you want, I doubt it will change anything.

What would be the criteria to be "like Kirk"? A figure who is seen as inspirational by many members of the base and a dangerous populist agitator by most in the opposite party, not in elected office but close to part of the upper brass, and involved in fundraising? I'm not sure who would meet these criteria on the Dem side, maybe some BLM leader?

A respectable middle class family man without controversies in his private life, no history of abuse, not a junkie or a person that has spend his life in prison for sexual relations with pre teen boys.

Floyd and Rosenbaum are somewhat harder to sympathize with whereas Kirk was one of the upper middle class people to which being shot at for just talking, just doesn't happen. So for professional politicians and other people that feel that they are in the crosshairs is easier to cross the isle for Kirk.

George Soros?

Soros doesn't personally show up at enemy territory in an attempt to persuade them by means of dialogue, he throws money at causes he likes. He's more like than the Koch brothers than Charlie Kirk.

Yeah -- I'm kidding around a little bit on the shadowy kingpin part there, but now that you mention it I can't even think of a single person who does the "persuasion in enemy territory" thing from the left. Destiny as close as I can think of, and he:

  1. Does it on stream, so you can't shoot him
  2. Good thing too, because he's a really bad faith debater from what I've seen

There was some "free speech" festival (possibly several) that he showed up for and did it live, but I'm blanking out on the name. Honestly, I think there was a time when he would have qualified, but between Trump II and Adderal (/all the other drugs he seems to enjoy) taking their toll, he seems to be falling apart at a rather rapid pace.

Al Sharpton died last year.Should be easy to dig up commentary.

I'm wrong, that was his father.

John Stewart (in his prime), John Oliver, Nikole Hannah Jones, David Hogg .... and historically ... MLK....

Surely, Jon Stewart was less controversial and much more of a celebrity than Kirk, who I had never heard of prior to his death.

More celebrity, sure, but less controversial? Eh...

Jon gladly flipped between 'most trusted newsperson' and 'you can't take what I said so seriously, I'm just a silly comedian' whenever it suited. He was never balanced, and was a significant cultivator of the 'Democrats may be inept, but Republicans are stupid-evil' smug-superiority of the 2010s progressive cultural zenith.

There is no question that The Daily Show took a political stance and generally thought that Dems were correct and Reps wrong, but did it take stances that Republicans would have found offensive? A TV personality rather than a radio personality, if you will. From what I have of Kirk, he was much more of radio personality, taking more provocative positions and being much more blunt.

Linda Sarsour, perhaps?

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