site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34202 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.

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