site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   30705 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think she's actually 100% correct here, and also it's silly to try to frame it as if she's being closed minded or bigoted or anything. She saw a very real risk and made a calcuation. Tim Walz was an ass pick, but they were attempting to get someone who would speak to men and masculinity, and the attempt at least makes sense.

Also, it's very clear that the left is constantly talking about demographics, representation and people seeing 'themselves' reflected. Well every time that choice is made, whether it's a casting call or a VP pick, it's equally a choice not to include someone else. It's fucking stupid to appeal to the logic of demographic representation in some cases, then gasp and act shocked about it when it's about literal choosing not to overlook a majority demographic for a minority demographic

"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."

If we take her at her word... wouldn't it have made more sense for her to simply not accept the nomination at all? She has (by her own calculations) 3 risk factors, while Butigieg only had 1. She could have just stepped aside and let him, or anyone else, take the nomination. Hell, she was in a position where she almost could have picked whoever she wanted to get the nom if she was willing to step aside herself. I guess she thought 107 days enough overcome black/female/antisemitic prejudice, but not quite enough for a gay vice president.

No, a black woman will can get black men to vote for them while a gay man won't almost certainly can't.

Edit: fixed.

Evidently not.

I have certainly seen it claimed that if the candidate had been anyone other than Harris, they wouldn’t have legally been able to access any of the funding that had already been secured for the BIDEN-HARRIS ticket, thereby essentially obligating her to stick it out.

That money could be given to the DNC to spend on whatever they think is best. Such as a turn out the vote effort for whomever is running for president.

Couldn't they keep her as VP and have someone else take Biden's slot?

If we take her at her word... wouldn't it have made more sense for her to simply not accept the nomination at all?

Not necessarily no. If her goal was to become president, then not taking the nomination and a different democrat winning wouldn't have helped her goal.

I mean taking her at her word that she really did want to help the country and defeat Trump, not being cynical and assuming she just wanted power for herself. But her argument is not logically coherent.

I think she's actually 100% correct here, and also it's silly to try to frame it as if she's being closed minded or bigoted or anything.

This is true. It's also true that what you say matters zilch to the left. Harris is a spent hen. She has served, and failed at, her purpose. The only way she can provide further value is for her to be eaten, and the left has always found their own people to be very tasty. This is just an opportunity for greater purity spiraling and virtue signaling, to show how they need even more progressive people, because it's the current year, goshdarnit!

Note: I'm not saying this shift to cannabilism for her in this situation because she lost her value is a conscious choice. I believe it is likely something which happens because the powers that be have less incentive to guard her from those that would want to cannabilize everyone all the time.

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