site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   30051 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 22, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, Kamala Harris has her book tour with the election retrospective. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it blames other people for a few things. But what drew some attention is that apparently some of the digs at fellow Democrats were notable, actually giving some the impression that she must be retiring from politics, though she's since tried to unburn some bridges.

What's drawing possibly the most attention is her description of the VP selection process. She said Josh Shapiro was too ambitious and had started for asking details about the VP's residence. She said that Tim Walz was actually her second choice, which is a bit hurtful if you're Tim. Eyebrows have been raised at this, but even more so at her reason for not choosing her first choice, who was Pete Buttigieg - literally described as the "ideal partner", if not for this one flaw, she says.

He's gay.

"We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let's just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk. And I think Pete also knew that -- to our mutual sadness." (book excerpt per the Atlantic)

It did not really go over well. Buttigieg himself said he wished she had more faith in Americans. She was confronted about it by Maddow recently, here's a clip, asking her to elaborate, as it's "hard to hear."

"No, no, no, that's not what I said. That - that's that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay. My point is, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for president of the United States against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor, to be a black woman running for president of the United States, and as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man. With the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk. No matter how - you know, I've been an advocate and an ally of of the LGBT community my entire life, so it wasn't about, it wasn't about - so it wasn't about any any prejudice on my part, but that we had such a short, we had such a short period of time. And the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant. And I think America is and would be ready for that. But when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go. You know, and maybe I was being too cautious, you know, I'll let our friends, we should all talk about that, maybe I was, but that's the decision I made - and I'm and I - as with everything else in the book and being very candid about that. Yeah. With a great deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have been a risk. (ed: Maddow's interjections removed. Maddow then just goes on and asks about running in 2028, response "that's not a focus right now")

I saw one twitter user summarize her answer as: "I didn’t not choose Pete because he was gay… I didn’t choose him because he is gay and I had 107 days."

This raises a number of questions. Was it right to be tactical like that? Was she correct about the tactics? Was it particularly absurd to say it out loud? Was this just an excuse, and there was some other reason? Is it hypocrisy by Harris? Is her point about having less time to run a campaign cope, or on some level a legitimate objection that such a short campaign must by nature adhere to different rules and strategies?

On the one hand I can see it. It was a short campaign, and the overarching philosophy was to play it safe. In retrospect, probably wrong. (And also an I told you so moment for me). In that light Harris is being perfectly consistent. On the other hand Kamala herself acknowledges that her own identity was potentially a barrier, is the concept of 'too much diversity to handle' a real thing, much less from those on the left? It is true that even Obama had his doubters about whether his campaign was doomed because of racism. Personally I don't buy that, I don't think it made much of a difference, but some people do think about it and still do think along the same lines. The flipside of that is also true, however: say she names Pete, would any alleged homophobia backfire onto Trump and his team, would it supercharge identity politics within the base, or is it a non-issue altogether?

My honest opinion? Again, like Obama: I don't think him being gay would matter. He's a great communicator, and would have been an asset. Although, he would need something of substance to explain, so it's not a full slam dunk, and I don't think it swings the election unless Pete gets to tack on his own new policies.

(There's other stuff to say about the memoir but I'll leave that for a different top-level post if people want to get into it.)

From all the excerpts I'm seeing of the book and the Rachel Maddow interview, the only sense I can make of this is that Harris is angry about being dumped with all the blame for giving Trump a second term, so she's bound and determined to get her revenge on the Democratic party. She says she's not going for Governor of California, and she's being very coy about 2028, so maybe she is trying to burn Newsom in return for what she feels is his lukewarm and lacking endorsement of her in the 2024 campaign?

How else to explain things like "I thought the titans of industry would protect democracy"? That is as good as making the slogan "A vote for the Democratic party candidate is a vote for the oligarchs! The Democratic Party - the party of real billionaires!"

Everybody knew she picked Walz over Shapiro because she felt Shapiro was too ambitious while Walz knew his place as second fiddle to her. I have no idea what she is trying to do, dragging Buttigieg into this - I couldn't pick him because he was too much of a liability, but that wasn't because he was gay, it was because he was gay and I'm black and female - what? that comes across as "don't anybody pick Buttigieg except maybe as VP for a straight white guy, because otherwise he's unelectable" and again, only sense it makes to me is that she is trying to torpedo as many Democratic picks as possible because, as per her book, she thinks she was deliberately undermined by the Biden White House both while in office as VP and when running her campaign, and the party never stepped up sufficiently to have her back, and Certain People who she expected to endorse her and support her didn't do it sufficiently or at all.

Whoo, is all I can say.

I can make of this is that Harris is angry about being dumped with all the blame for giving Trump a second term, so she's bound and determined to get her revenge on the Democratic part

Which is kinda ironic because the only reason she was nominee is because she was the revenge Biden took on the Democratic party for being pushed out.

she thinks she was deliberately undermined by the Biden White House both while in office as VP

To be maximally fair, it really does seem like JD Vance is getting much more press coverage and airtime, and tackling higher-profile issues both at home and abroad, than Kamala ever did as VP. Maybe that’s because the Republicans are more serious about grooming (heh) JD to be Trump’s successor than the Dems were about Kamala, or maybe it just boils down to Kamala’s relative lack of gumption/competence.

I do get the impression that Biden wasn't all that enthusiastic about Kamala, mostly because she was sort of imposed on him. He'd shot his mouth off about making a woman his VP, and then the black Democratic leaders wanted their pound of flesh in return for all the support, so it had to be a black woman. And it does look like Kamala got chosen as "nobody wants her but everyone will take her instead of the other choice because they want the job themselves and don't want a rival to get it".

So all the leaks about problems in the VP's office etc. that were trickling out were, I think, part of the Biden staffers strategy to keep her in her lane if she showed signs of trying to grab the reins herself. In contrast, Trump seems to like Vance just enough, or not be threatened by him, that he lets him do a more public job as VP.

nobody wants her but everyone will take her instead of the other choice

Who would "the other choice" have been at that point? Biden kind of painted himself into a corner there. Michelle Obama might have worked but I don't think she wanted the job.

Several pundits and outlets liked making little lists of "possible VP picks".

Politico's list included a gay woman (if we're talking about why Kamala felt she couldn't pick Pete), so I do think picking Kamala was due to some internal politics in the party. For example, again from Politico's list:

Bass, 66, has said it is “very important” that Biden pick a woman of color for the VP spot. She was the first Black woman in the country to lead a state legislature after being chosen as speaker of the California state Assembly in 2008, after serving as an assemblywoman for three and a half years. Before entering public life, Bass was an emergency room physician assistant at the outset of the AIDS crisis and a civil rights activist.

Hmm, that wouldn't be you throwing your hat in the ring as "I will serve my country if selected", now would it, Karen?

Stacey Abrams, might've been even worse than Kamala. According to wikipedia Val Demings was one of the alternatives, but didn't get picked; maybe due to Kamala's higher name recognition from her failed primary run?

Reading between the lines of the info and reporting we have, Biden did choose Kamala and felt pretty OK about it. He chose her because she convincingly assured him that she would stay loyal. And she basically did, to her and his 'credit'. That's on a personal level between Joe and Kamala. So in that respect I don't think that's right, he trusted her just fine. Was it enthusiasm? No. She wasn't a social friend, and I don't think ever became one, although I'm pretty sure at least some of the bigger decisions he let her in the room for.

However, and this is the huge caveat - Biden's staffers did not get converted to Kamala. I think it's even been explicitly reported that several of Biden's inner circle literally never forgave her for the bussing accusation during the primaries, implying that Biden was a segregationist sympathizer. So yes, on a lower level, her staff was often iced out, I think that's pretty clear. (It's also clear that her camp has always been chaotic, and although Biden's staff didn't ever push back on those allegations, unlike Kamala I don't think that was the Biden staffers' fault, just her own).

Vance? Well, for one, even though staffers are rarely super visible, Vance's keep pretty quiet as far as I know. I'm pretty clued in politically, and I can't even name one. While by contrast I can name drop Susie Wiles, Chris LaCivita, Stephen Miller, and a few other close-orbit Trump team people easily (to be fair not all of them are attention-seekers, but there plenty of others who are). Looking at the list, most of them don't seem to be super frontline warriors, other than maybe his Senate buddies Mike Lee (ugh), Josh Hawley (ugh), and Tom Cotton. Plus, he adopted some Don Jr. people and so there's some bridges in place. And you know Trump is still absolutely glowing after Vance attacked Zelensky for disrespect a few months back on Trump's behalf.

More the later. Kamala was given high-visibility opportunities to act in areas of high public interest, such as her time as Migration Czar, but preferred to ditch publicity with anything that might be controversial. Keeping her profile low was part of her VP strategy, so that she could present herself as heir apparent when Biden would move off the stage, though likely not intended in the way it ultimately happened.

Or maybe Harris is just making another baffling decision? She’s made lots of those.

Putting aside any partisan feelings, I think she’s probably the clear front runner for the dumbest presidential candidate of my entire lifetime.

I don’t think it’s recency bias either, I’ve been wracking my brain for a while trying to think of a counter example and I’m coming up empty.

I understand why people voted for her even though I staunchly disagree, but she’s like the real life version of Veep with about a standard deviation less IQ. Whenever I hear her talk I think about that H.L. Mencken quote.

I only know Harris from recent years, but she doesn’t seem super ambitious and I wouldn’t be surprised if she rode off into the sunset. She’s happy to play the role of the party’s anointed, but she’s not going to Bernie Sanders her way against the Democratic Party

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