site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   19272 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 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.

One of the things I think on is that Hitler was quite popular when elected. He got 43.9% of the vote. Presumably there would have a bunch of Jewish people (just like now with Jewish people having a wide range of beliefs) who would have gone "Wow Hitler is so great in so many ways" and agreed with him on most topics and just wished he dropped the antisemitism part. But of course, Hitler didn't drop it and those Jews died too.

You could have a hypothetical Jew with 99.9% of policy agreement with Hitler on every other topic except antisemitism, and that .1% is the difference between life and death. The same hypothetical Jew would be better off with someone who they disagree 99.9% of policies with as long as that .1% they agree on was "don't kill the Jews"

The violent and hateful members of "Your own side" will come after you too, because they are violent and hateful and that .1% of disagreement on "should the Jews die?" or "should I attack people who disagree with me?" is all that matters.

  • -14

He got 43.9% of the vote.

The 1933 election after the Reichstag Fire wasn't exactly a free and fair election. The Communist leadership was in prison, and von Papen had seized control over the Prussian police in 1932 and a number of other states had Nazi-led governments, so most of Germany was an anarcho-tyranny in favour of the Nazi SA and DNVP-aligned Stahlhelm.

The NSDAP's best result in an election that was a real test of public opinion was 37.3% in July 1932. There was never a right-wing majority in a Weimar election until after Hitler had already taken power - even if you include anti-Nazi right-wing parties such as the Bavarian BVP.

This is of course, a quibble - the Nazis were broadly popular in the sense that 30-50% of the German electorate thought that a Nazi-led government was a good idea, and Hitler would never have come to power if this had not been the case.

I think you've figured out why Jews don't like Hamas.

The same hypothetical Jew would be better off with someone who they disagree 99.9% of policies with as long as that .1% they agree on was "don't kill the Jews"

Yeah, so Jews should probably disassociate from the "River to the Sea" people, who are the main group who want to kill Jews nowadays. They don't call themselves Nazis... but to be fair, their forefathers have been wanting to kill Jews since before Adolf was a gleam in Aloysius's eye.

I agree.

Neither the Hamas left side or the neonazi right side seem to be good spaces for Jews. They are safer with non violent moderates of any belief than the violence loving bigoted extremists even on "their own side"

Except the mainstream of the left includes the River to the Sea people, while the mainstream of the right doesn't include the groypers or the "dissident right" (you can tell from the name).

Glad that's established.

There appears to be about 1,000-10,000 pro-Hamas left for every neonazi on the right, with vastly more institutional support. The left has rising star politicians that refuse to condemn Hamas, and strongly hint at open support. Their controlled institutions, like the unviersities, openly support and coddle Hamas partisans. Their biggest influencers, like Hasan Piker, openly support the mass murder of Jews and cheer on literal, organizationally-continuous-from-the-1930's NDSAP allies.

So do you agree that the left has ten thousand times the nazi problem that the right does, right? Or are you engaging in some sort of Terryology math?

My understanding is that the Muslim/Jew blood feud goes back to the Zionist project (A Jewish diaspora was more-or-less tolerated by most Muslim kingdoms/empires until then). So we're talking 1920s or so, after Mr. Hitler was an adult

Goes back WAY further than that, to the days of Muhammad.

I'm aware of the Quran passages, but I thought that Judaism mostly cozied up to Islam throughout middle ages and early modern ages, and that Jews were willingly employed by Muslims as spies and 5th columnists against Christian kingdoms. AFAIK the current Jewish-Muslim feud did start with the Zionist settlement of the Levant.

Islam is a religion of peace and has only had somewhat contentious interactions with any other faith or civilization in the last 100 years as a direct result of colonialism and Zionism. How dare you suggest otherwise

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