site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29343 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm yet another commenter who remembers the 107 days very differently wrt to the enthusiasm around Harris by many Dem-leaning posters on this forum. I distinctly remember multiple regular such commenters explicitly talking positively about how different and positive this "vibe shift" was on the ground towards Harris, especially about the "weird" attack that Walz & she were pushing heavily about JD Vance (and conservatives in general).

Of course, this was mocked just as heavily here and in other places. One rather common response I recall was a meme format on /r/stupidpol (subreddit focused on Marxism/socialism/leftism with an explicit disdain and rejection of identity politics) where people would make up fake anecdotes about going to the local "McSchlucks" to hang out with "the boys" where tough blue collar workers were all gushing over how they were a little skeptical about this fancy-schmancy lawyer Harris lady, but after looking a bit deep into her policies and considering the kinds of things Trump has done, they feel like she's really the one that speaks to them, their values, for what's good for their daughters and wives and sisters, etc. Basically the "Man Enough for Harris" advertisement in text form, as parody, before the ad was ever created.

Now, I did fully expect most mainstream Subreddits and news outlets to buy in hook-line-sinker to Harris's message and to push it as pure true believers, and that was indeed what happened, but I admit to being surprised by seeing the sheer volume of that here at the Motte. I consider The Motte good not only for providing a space for people with non-mainstream opinions to present, argue, and discuss their cases, but also for being a space where people with mainstream opinions tend to hold themselves up to higher standards, and seeing this was a disappointment to me that challenged this belief.

but I admit to being surprised by seeing the sheer volume of that here at the Motte.

You're just making stuff up dude.

I was over at my dads house today helping with some household chores. He lives in a very rural area of a very red state. At the end of the work we went to one of the nearby country bars. It’s the kind of place that farmers, truckers, legit cowboy boot wearers and the working class go to unwind with a cold one.

Vice President Harris was on the TV and the local gun store owner said to his auto mechanic (friends since high school),

“You know what? She ain’t so bad. The economy is recovering, nobody’s rioting, and we’re standing up on the world stage again. Can’t believe I’m saying this but Ol’ Oakland Kam’s got my vote this year.”

I looked around and all I saw were heads nodding in agreement. I heard a few calls of “Yes sir” and “Damn Straight” from the men around me. Even saw the lonely ball cap wearing farmer in the corner raise his drink with a nod.

Is this a quote, or an anecdote?

Edited to remove unnecessary antagonism.

To be fair to yourself, the antagonism may not have been entirely unwarranted since I just kinda dropped this without elaborating. Sorry. RoyGBivens is correct, it's a copypasta from shortly after Biden dropped out and Harris took over the nomination.

I intended this to be another example of what 07mk was talking about on /r/stupidpol.

It's a copypasta from July 2024.

Intellectuals are more capable than the hoi polloi of elaborate self-deception. I suspect that at least some of us here are immersed in the New York Times reading, granola-eating, NOVA-commuting segment of the American population where things like seeing Kamela Harris as a viable candidate are in vogue.

Intellectuals are more capable than the hoi polloi of elaborate self-deception.

To get on my favorite tangent, even though I have high skepticism of most social science, I do believe that the best evidence right now indicates that this is true. As such, intellectuals have no excuse for being unaware that they themselves are more susceptible to self-deception than the hoi polloi. And if they choose not to take extra steps - more than they expect a typical layman to take - to guard against the possibility of them deceiving themselves, they are admitting that they prioritize their own biases over truth.

Which is all well and good, but I just wish people who did this would be open about it instead of deceiving others about their embrace of self-deception over truth.

Which is all well and good, but I just wish people who did this would be open about it instead of deceiving others about their embrace of self-deception over truth.

one of their self delusions is that they are unbiased of course. Rationalism isn't about rational thought but rationalizing our own biases.

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