site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24823 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Knock it off with "shitlibs." This isn't that kind of place even if the majority sentiment agrees with you.

Personally I've just never understood what that word is supposed to signify. Irritates me when I see it because I think, there has to be a better way to express whatever it is that you're trying to tell me.

Roughly "normie", "unsophisticated", "parroting MSNBC'

It wasn't meant as a boo outgroup. I just thought it's a good shorthand descriptor that everyone here would understand. Apparently not.

The "shitlib" is the type of American Democrat, blue no matter who, woke, feminist, BLM, big fan of trans and Gaza at the same time, blank slatist, protects (favored) groups as legitimate victims but doesn't really protect individuals, hates the West and its capitalist system, favors anyone outside it, etc etc. It's a certain type of person, often blue-haired or gay and vegan, heavy on language policing, previously a verified check user on Twitter, now on bluesky. You get the picture.

How is this different from simply "woke"? You cite it as just one trait, but everything else on your list is a trait I would expect to be implicit in describing someone as "woke".

I generally don't like using the word woke because it would get me instant backlash from normies who claim it's just a bogeyman etc and only the worst chuds worry about wokeim. Not that that's likely to happen on TM, but it's my general feeling.

I mean, if that's your concern, "shitlib" wouldn't exactly invite less left-wing pushback.

Loud and clear. What's bizarre here is that I've used the term previously on this site and no one reacted. But now, modding and lots of downvotes.

Well, mods aren't machines. But I also think it's because your post was a 'low-effort', two-sentences thing. An inflammatory term which might represent a drop in the ocean in some multi-paragraph effortpost, and skate by as a result, is more of an issue when it's at the very core of a very brief comment.

Larry Sanger has a good term for it - GASP. Globalist Academic Secular Progressive.

Except those words would describe Scott, a majority of the SSC commentariat and half the Motte before its evaporation over the past couple of years.

And yet very few if any of these people would agree that TPs description fits them, even beyond the parts where he still couldn't resist more boos ("protects (favored) groups as legitimate victims but doesn't really protect individuals" is nobody's self-description).

Yeah I don't like it when populism is defined by its stupidest proponents either, but that's the world we live in. Do you think people with those values would not recognise themselves as globalist, academic, secular or progressive?

That's pretty good.

It wasn't meant as a boo outgroup.

Yes it was.

I just thought it's a good shorthand descriptor that everyone here would understand. Apparently not.

Of course we understood it. You're sneering at the people you hate. Making broad generalizations and then saying "Well of course I don't mean literally every single one of my outgroup" does not make it acceptable.

Calling someone a shit-anything is clearly a boo-light.

Do you have a cleaner word for that type of person?

"bsky progressive" works fine.

Terminally online leftist would be my pick, but that's shooting from the hip.

Honestly, your word isn't much good anyways give how much explanation it already required. It's a lot of heat for little light.

Just "progressive". Or "progressive-conservative" if you're more cutting edge- more and more of them will discover they are conservatives at their core, in time.

What do you mean? They'll change their beliefs as they age? Or they're already crypto conservative and don't know it?

I think the idea is moreso that although they fantasize themselves to be radicals fighting the Man, they will eventually realize that Big Woke is the Man and, far from being countercultural rebels, they're fighting to preserve the current institutions and balance of power.

American Democrat, blue no matter who, woke, feminist, BLM, big fan of trans and Gaza at the same time, blank slatist, protects (favored) groups as legitimate victims but doesn't really protect individuals

"Woke, politically engaged 18-35 college educated Democrats" or "Blue tribe idpol illiberals"? "Common Bluesky beliefs" or "Resistance Twitter beliefs" might get you dinged for the same comment, but if you adjusted the context you could probably get away with them. You replaced it with progressive and I think that is the best choice.

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