site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   28259 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.

Gaines is also a former employee of the DHS which is just another point of evidence of low level gop aligned staffers having pro Nazi/antisemitic views.

I have no idea who Gaines is and I care even less, but as a former low-level public service minion that part made me laugh. The DHS in the USA is a hive of scum and villainy, huh? If you're a low-level employee, then you must be... dun-dun-dun... a Nazi!

Let's take a look at the demographics of the DHS (ain't statistics wonderful?) All them low-level female, disabled, BIPOC employees who are secret Nazis! Tidying up the table a bit:

White (Non-Hispanic or Latino) 51.7%
Hispanic or Latino 22.8%
Black or African American (Non-Hispanic or Latino) 16.7%
Asian 6.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1.0%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.7%
Two or More Races 0.8%

Male 65.4%
Female 34.6%
Individuals with Reported* Disabilities 15.4%
Individuals with Targeted** Disabilities 1.3%

*"Reported disabilities" includes employees who self-identify as an individual with a disability or targeted disability ...and employees who were appointed under hiring authorities that take disability into account, i.e., 30% or More Disabled Veteran Appointment and Schedule A Hiring Authority, who have not otherwise self-identified as having a disability.
** "Targeted disabilities" are a subset of reportable disabilities that the Federal Government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis. Targeted disabilities listed on the SF-256 form include: developmental disability, traumatic brain injury, deaf or serious difficulty hearing, blind or serious difficulty seeing, missing extremities, significant mobility impairment, partial or complete paralysis, epilepsy or other seizure disorders, intellectual disability, significant psychiatric disorder, dwarfism, and significant disfigurement.

Federal workforce in general, stats from 2023:

Sixty percent of the federal workforce identified as white compared to 76% in the private sector. Nearly 19% of the federal workforce identified as Black and 10% identified as Hispanic compared to 13% and 19% of the U.S. labor force, respectively.

While 40% of the federal workforce was comprised of individuals who identify as part of a racial or ethnic minority group, this number diminishes significantly at higher levels on the General Schedule scale. People of color make up much of the federal workforce in positions from the GS-2 to GS-6 level, these grade levels typically comprise lower and entry-level administrative positions. White employees make up much of the workforce above the GS-7 level, which consists of mid-level technical and first-level supervisory positions and top-level technical and supervisory positions.

Twenty-six percent of career Senior Executive Service members identified as a person of color in fiscal 2023, a small increase from 25% in the previous year. Of the federal workforce that was not on the GS scale, 37% identified as a person of color.

The overall federal workforce was 55% male and 45% female, compared to 53% male and 47% female in the total U.S. labor force.

Women made up the majority of the federal workforce in GS-3 to GS-9 positions. Notably, 73% of GS-6 employees are female. Men made up much of the workforce above the GS-10 level, the SES and positions not on the GS pay scale.

Women made up the majority of the federal workforce in GS-3 to GS-9 positions, while men made up the majority of the workforce above the GS-10 level, the SES and positions not on the GS pay scale.

Individuals who have served in the uniformed military service constituted a considerable segment of the federal workforce. At the end of fiscal 2023, 30% of federal employees were veterans compared to 5% of the total employed U.S. civilian labor force. In the same year, 25% of new federal hires were veterans.

In fiscal 2023, 21% of the federal workforce identified as having a disability or serious health condition. Of those employees, 2.7% indicated having a targeted or serious health condition and 7.8% identified as having other disabilities or serious health conditions. The other 10.5% of employees with a disability had either an unlisted or undisclosed disability.

Thirty-two percent of federal employees hold a bachelor’s degree, and another 21% have an advanced degree. Federal workers possess bachelor’s and advanced degrees at a higher rate than the overall U.S. labor force—53.8% to 40.4% in 2023.

So - feds are slightly less white and Hispanic and slightly more black than the general workforce, slightly more male, especially in higher-level/more technical grades (the higher up you go, the whiter and more male the management levels get, which tracks with private industry as well), more likely to be veterans, and somewhat better educated than the general workforce.

Pick your Nazis out of that.

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