site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27962 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.

Harvard, Columbia, and many other universities are still fighting court cases about their abject failures to make that distinction, aren't they?

Maybe you're right, I'm not particularly familiar with the details of the court cases or what specifically happened during the protests.

That said, I'm also not impressed by the mere fact that Trump decided to sue a bunch of Blue Tribe institutions.

And the people most likely to preach that white people are the scum of the earth are progressive white women and pick-me progressive white men. Projected self-hatred is not exactly an uncommon psychological ailment.

It's a bit condescending to suggest that Jews protesting Israel killing thousands of Gazan civilians must be doing it out of some psychological ailment. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here defending American Adventurism in the 21st century (to the point of obsessively redefining George W. as a democrat, and Trump as the first true Republican in forty years), yet I imagine this is a rational argument rather than a bunch of self-hating Americans?

Still waiting to an answer on this one first.

Then you can keep complaining about woke, Magicalkitty can keep complaining about nazis, and I can write 10,000 words to gesture at the ascendant [redacted] in the west.

I'm also not impressed by the mere fact that Trump decided to sue a bunch of Blue Tribe institutions.

Well of course not, they strategically located their weapons depots under the hospitals universities.

It's a bit condescending to suggest that Jews protesting Israel killing thousands of Gazan civilians must be doing it out of some psychological ailment.

I learned from the best! I don't think it's a requirement, of course; I'm sure there are very good sane people on both sides. But certainly an option.

Well of course not, they strategically located their weapons depots under the hospitals universities.

What?

I learned from the best!

Who, me?

The vast majority of the modern left are identitarian, so not incorrect but also not a clarifying statement.

This is my point. What does it matter if Nara dresses his partisanship up in pretty language when the functional outcome is more or less the same?

If Rachel Maddow or whatever other blue partisan hack you want to choose went on MSNBC and said I don't hate Republicans, I just hate people who oppose immigration, would you be fooled into thinking she's some enlightened centrist operating on lofty principles?

Why not?

Because for the purposes of this conversation, the cause of the differences doesn't matter. If I don't utter that shibboleth everything inevitably devolves into a discussion about HBD.

If you want to own abolitionists, you have to own the eugenicists too. Is that really what you want?

In a single conversation, I've been told I need to take responsibility for:

  1. All the inner city slums and attendant race riots - 1910-1970 (built by progressives, progressives imported black people from the south)
  2. Right wing 'ethnonationalism' or whatever euphemism is deemed inoffensive by the users of this board - present day (it's the fault of progressives)
  3. 9/11 (progressives passed an immigration law in 1965 enabling hijackers)
  4. Antisemitism in America/running cover for Islamofascism - present day (Spoiler: it's progressives who are the real antisemites!)
  5. Eugenics movement in the US - 1920s?

Lol, alright. If you want me to take responsibility for a hundred year old eugenics movement, maybe try taking responsibility for the president you elected 20 years ago instead of frantically trying to recast him as a democrat. How's that for a non-sequitur?

What?

It's a joke/reference about Hamas, and the way the universities are supposed to be above reproach since they harbor scientists (valuable), terrorists (not), and grievance studies (at least terrorists have the conviction of their beliefs).

If you want me to take responsibility for a hundred year old eugenics movement

I don't really want you to, I'm saying that's the appropriate price to pay to claim abolitionists as "your side" too as much closer ancestors of the modern progressive. Most abolitionists were deeply religious, and hardly the model of modern progressives- of course, so were the slave owners.

I am slightly fascinated by the sociocultural manipulations and upheavals that resulted in progressives keeping the name progressive, keeping abortion and sort of keeping evolution, but managing to shed the eugenic affiliations. Neat!

In a single conversation, I've been told I need to take responsibility for...

Maybe don't take claim of abolitionists if you don't want to be saddled with everything else over three centuries?

maybe try taking responsibility for the president you elected 20 years ago instead of frantically trying to recast him as a democrat.

Dubyah? I'm not quite as old as you think, I guess; I couldn't vote yet. Given my druthers I probably would've voted third party.

It’s a “““joke””” trying to imply that universities are nothing more than Hamas recruiting grounds

Didn’t realize you were an administration official.

Maybe don't take claim of abolitionists if you don't want to be saddled with everything else over three centuries?

Then how should I respond to the accusation that liberals are to blame for right wing skinheads? Is '"Liberals are the only people with agency" theory undefeated' the professorgerm approved line?

Dubyah? I'm not quite as old as you think, I guess; I couldn't vote yet. Given my druthers I probably would've voted third party.

Who cares? I obviously couldn't vote for LBJ in 1965. Most people couldn't vote for Reagan, but apparently he was the last 'real' Republican president prior to Trump, everyone else was a Dem or Dem dressed up as an elephant. The only other real Republican presidents in the 20th century were Nixon (unfairly set up by the CIA/FBI btw) and Teddy Roosevelt.

Then how should I respond to the accusation that liberals are to blame for right wing skinheads?

Question underdefined. I met an actual, I think reforming, skinhead once. Small rural town, worked at the barbershop there. Still had the shaved head and camo cargo pants, and a tattoo on his arm looked like a coverup- I didn't ask of what. Nice enough, to me anyways; if he wasn't fully reformed at least he had no issue with Amerimutt micks. I don't blame liberals for that kind of guy, and your response to the suggestion liberals are to blame for him and his (former?) compatriots should be a scoff.

But I don't think that's the kind of guy you mean, that Mottezans want to blame liberals for.

Is '"Liberals are the only people with agency" theory undefeated' the professorgerm approved line?

Good to know I have a fan! With attribution, I'll accept your usage. And to some degree, yes; I think liberals (writ broadly) like to ignore how much agency they've been able to exert and prefer to avoid the consequences of their influence. This is probably true across the board, though, and less a liberal issue so much as a human one.

Who cares?

So it goes.

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