site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   24411 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I want to talk about the AI video that Trump reposted, where he is flying a plane with 'King Trump' on the side, wearing a crown, dumping a payload of feces on a crowd of No Kings protestors in NYC.

Frankly, I keep thinking I can't be surprised anymore by the depths which Trump (or more realistically, his social media team0 will stoop too, and yet here we are...

Ultimately as a Christian, I find this sort of blatant hatred and mockery of the outgroup quite disturbing. I understand that staid, boring, conservatism has lost majorly over the last few decades. I understand that the right needs some vitalism, some dynamism, some sort of way to act in an agentic way that isn't just mindlessly opposing whatever progressives are doing at the moment, and then slowly backing off and letting progressives have what they want over the course of a few years.

However, I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. At this point, while Trump definitely is effective at rallying the base, I simply find his aesthetics to be revolting. It's hard to countenance not just the outright hatred of the outgroup, but the sheer crassness that is presented here.

Not just that, but why would he egg on this idea that he wants to be king? It makes zero strategic sense from my perspective, all it does is fan the flames. I suppose if he wants to fan the flames of the culture war, fine, but that's also not something I'm behind.

Anyway, the current coalition of the right, where Christian or even just classical conservatives are sort of holding their nose and voting for Trump, seems increasingly unstable to me. I suppose we'll see how things end up.

Similarly, WH Press Secretary Katherine Leavitt recently said, well, lots of shit, including that the person who decided Trump and Putin would meet in Hungary is "Your mom," (repeated by Trump's something-communications-something Steven Cheung or however his name is spelled) followed by directly insulting journalists who asked the clarifying question "Really?"

I'm enough of a Motteizen to see a performance art interpretation of this, in which open antagonism and appeals to base emotion are commentary on the expected veneer of reason. Realistically, I don't think there's likely a respectable method to their madness and that the more likely explanation is that they're irredeemable shit-stirrers, but it'll be interesting to see what comes next.

Be fair. She was talking to the Huffington Post.

Scattered thoughts:

Prior to this video, there was an article the other day about Vance ('s account) on social media trolling opponents. I thought, "doesn't he have better things to be doing," but then remembered, no, the VP really doesn't. His main job is waking up in the morning and seeing whether the president is still alive, so otherwise using his time to be the shitposter-in-chief is probably not a particular waste of his resources.

I'm not a big fan of Trump's crassness, but it's not like Romney's commitment to decorum accomplished much.

Behavior like this from Trump or Musk proves that no matter how much power or money one has, the best thing in life is apparently shitposting.

Hey now, he also has to cast the tie breaking vote in the senate once every few months

The best thing in life is crushing your enemies, driving them before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women. But if you can't have that, shitposting is a solid second.

"The best thing in virtual life is crushing your enemies with facts and logic, driving them to seethe before you, and hearing the lamentations of their forums."

The primordial desire to throw feces at one's enemies! Truly, the more we advance, the more humans stay the same. I can't help how much I giggle at the concept of literal shitflinging on an industrial scale.

It makes zero strategic sense from my perspective, all it does is fan the flames. I suppose if he wants to fan the flames of the culture war, fine, but that's also not something I'm behind.

Your first sentence assumes strategy, which is the mistake. Trump "weaves" and, I think, is just having fun. Crass fun, but nothing strategic.

Then again, The Mule is a special case and I'm not a predictor.

I simply find his aesthetics to be revolting.

Do you see any functional alternatives? I too find the aesthetic revolting, and yet- no one else is picking up the crown from the gutter. The alternatives are no less revolting. The tolerable alternative is, seemingly, retreat and quietude.

The left offers no superior aesthetics, and I'll take the shit plane over 'whiteness is a contract with the devil.' David Frenchism is about losing correctly. I'll also take the shit plane over EHC-posting; even toilet humor is better than that.

What surprised me the most wasn't seeing a video of Trump putting on a crown and shitting on Americans, it was seeing who posted it. The prophecy has been fulfilled...

I totally expected Trump to depict himself as a king to mock the No Kings people. I was surprised he went as far as virtually throwing feces... but probably shouldn't have been.

as a Christian

Christ also mocked his outgroup. He called them stupid, the children of vipers, blind, ravenous wolves, criminals. The funniest insult in the Bible is when Paul tells advocates of circumcision that they should go one step further and castrate themselves. If Christ wasn’t polite than neither should you be polite. What do you gain by politeness? Christian perfection is brotherly love, and brothers who love each other insult and fight each other. They just don’t take it too seriously.

And as an American you should especially love insulting people. The patriots would kidnap loyalists, pour hot tar on them, and then throw hundreds of feathers to them so they would look like a chicken. Hilarious.

Yeah I have to admit this is an interesting argument, and does give me pause. I'll have to think about it more.

I suppose my immediate rejoinder is that Trump is nowhere near as wise or loving as Christ, and doesn't even pretend to be. If Trump went around healing others and dispensing incredible spiritual wisdom while also insulting his enemies, I'd be a helluva lot more willing to accept his behavior.

Another example, this time from the OT (via this Nick Freitas video, in the discussion of "niceness" and seminaries that emphasize being inoffensive): Elijah sarcastically mocking the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).

I'm reminded of a bit in the comments at TAC with Rod Dreher in Trump's first term (IIRC, after the diplomacy with North Korea), where someone asked Dreher just what he disagreed with in Trump's foreign policy. Rod's response was that he pretty much approved of Trump's foreign policy, and even most domestic policy… but none of that mattered nearly as much as that he just can't stand how Trump talks. Would he rather have a president who is worse on policy, who is more materially damaging, but who comports himself in the proper upper-class manners? Actually, yes. (Because, as others noticed upon deeper analysis of what Dreher does and doesn't object to when it comes to people saying "mean" things or speaking in a "low-class" manner, his problem with Trump's manner is that it reminds him too much of the kids who bullied him in school.)

The thing is, it's an incorrect argument. Christ wasn't "mocking his outgroup", he was (admittedly harshly) criticizing people for the bad actions they took. Mocking implies antipathy, which Christ wouldn't have done. His actions were rooted in love and desire to bring the Pharisees to repentance, not "haha look at those losers". You can't really say the same for Trump (well you can, but nobody is going to believe that).

He used the same insulting words that would be used when mocking. Claiming that it isn't mockery because he said the same words with a different attitude is special pleading.

This is said tongue-in-cheek, but: Trump's Congress passed Right to Try, over the objections of Democrats and 'bioethicists', which he trumpets on the campaign trail, and his close aide Natalie Harp follows him because she believes Right to Try saved her life. His administration, both in the moment of crisis and with the ground prepared by long-term Trump appointees, also pushed through regulatory barriers to approve the vaccine which ended a global plague.

As for spiritual wisdom:

I try and tell myself it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters. If you tell yourself it doesn’t matter, like you do shows, you do this, you do that and then you have earthquakes in India where 400,000 people get killed. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. That’s how I handle stress.

I'm being a little cute. I don't think there's anything that's going to get me into heaven. I think I'm not maybe heaven-bound, I may be in heaven right now as we fly on Air Force One. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make heaven, but I've made life a lot better for a lot of people. I want to try and get to heaven if possible, I’m hearing I’m not doing well.

image

The bar for Constantine is lower than the bar for Christ, and as far as Christian rulers go Trump is at least above the bar of, say, having his son poisoned and his wife boiled alive.

Oh, so that's why the Brits say "God save the King".

Not sure exactly what you mean, but yeah, it would be silly to say "God Save St. George" - he's already saved, he's a saint! - but kings do need saving, in both senses.

Personally I think Constantine’s conversion is one of the worst things that ever happened to the Church.

This appears to be something of an awkward statement. As far as I am aware, Constantine is a Saint in all/nearly-all Orthodox Churches. Not just a Saint, but Equal-to-the-Apostles. Is this correct for your particular branch of Orthodoxy?

If he is a Saint and Equal-to-the-Apostles, this feels like someone who is nominally Christian saying “I think Simon Peter putting his nets down and following Christ is one of the worst things that ever happened to the Church.”

I'm a bit more Protestant at heart than most Orthodox, I suppose. Then again, see the way Orthodox people talk about Saint Augustine...

I'm happy to give Thomas his ultra-purist position, but as a non-Christian sympathizer of Byzantine caesaropapism, also worth noting that Constantine is personally responsible for a couple little things like the Nicene Creed. Without a secular power to put its foot down, the Church has historically tended to splinter into a nest of feuding heresies.

Yeah, I was hoping that the material being dumped was mud or clay or something, but it looks too much like faeces to be anything else. A shame, this level of crudity is self-defeating (Trump wearing a crown and being a fighter jet pilot was funny enough on its own, doing a Red Arrows style show over the protestors would have been better).

A shame, this level of crudity is self-defeating

Trump isn't running for office again, unless you're Scott Alexander. And even if he was, I really doubt this would lead someone to change their vote about him (or the Republicans). Exactly how is it self-defeating?

It's just disappointing to see the last vestiges of even a pretence at civil behaviour being abandoned. Teenage boys behaving like this? Sure, you expect that until they grow up and get at least a little bit civilised. I know this wasn't Trump himself creating this, but whatever 20-something did, they need to stand in the corner until they apologise nicely.

But I suppose that's just my feminine delicacy and lack of understanding of masculine qualities showing!

This video is obviously stupid, crass, and does nothing good for anybody. But if you’re upset about trump’s moral character might I gesture to, just picking something at random, stormy Daniels? Nobody thinks he’s a good Christian along the lines of Bush. Cruz and Santorum were the high water marks of personally devout politicians in recent years- and they couldn’t win Republican presidential primaries.

Santorum also, notably, still has his last name associated with shit on a google search.

And people are still making JD Vance couch jokes referencing a completely fake quote from his book. Many of those same fine folks were concerned about "misinformation" within the last few years.

Many of those same fine folks were concerned about "misinformation" within the last few years.

I've seen more than one Tumblrite "explain," quite forthrightly, how "misinformation" is inherently a right-wing phenomenon (like "authoritarianism"), and thus when the left wing does the same thing, it is excluded from being considered "misinformation" by definition.

And Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer.

It’s interesting that in ‘12 and ‘16 the primary, for the republicans, turned into a Christian conservative vs secular conservative duel, but as far as we can tell this far out, the ‘28 primary definitely won’t- the name Donald Trump might have been surprising in 2013, but the basic contours of ‘big field of people, most of them having no business running for President, coalesces into a duel between a basically-secular conservative candidate and a strongly Christian candidate with history as a conservative hardliner’ is what most people would have predicted.

IIRC people were still predicting at least one competitive pro-establishment candidate right up to the day before Super Tuesday. (Kasich was never competitive, he was just well-positioned to go the distance with a doomed campaign).

The behaviour of the not-Trump candidates in Q1 2016 (which was the decisive period of the primary) was consistent with the theory that they expected the race to shake out as a pro-establishment candidate (Rubio, Christie, or Jeb Bush) against an anti-establishment candidate (Trump or Cruz).

It took a very long time for the so-called liberal elites to understand that conservative Red Tribers in the country saw George W Bush as just as much of a miserable failure as they did, and therefore just how bad things were (and still are) for the pro-establishment right.

I mean it seemed patently obvious to me that an establishment candidate wasn't competitive enough to get to 1v1 territory. It seemed like everyone knew it was going to be a fistfight for who could be credibly anti-establishment after Romney's failure.

The establishment candidates didn't think that, which is why they kept attacking each other rather than attacking Trump or Cruz. Establishment commentators were aware of (and aghast at) the prospect of Trump making the last two from about January 2016 but they were expecting it to be at the expense of Cruz - as, presumably, was Cruz given that he spent most of January going after Trump in a way no other candidate did.

Oh, yeah. Dan Savage made sure of that. And now we're surprised this kind of material is common? (I'm disappointed more than anything, but 'hey isn't it funny to call our opponents literal shit?' did start with the Liberal Compassionate All-Accepting side of the fence).

Santorum may have been the first to be called that particular mixture of noisome bodily fluids, but I doubt he's the first to have been called shit.

True, but I remember the giggling self-congratulatory commentary by the Savage followers, and the way they thought they were so clever and so witty. Yes, it really makes me sympathetic to your cause when you brag about the sexual activity you insist is the defining characteristic of your entire identity being something that produces foul emissions and disease.

Frankly, I keep thinking I can't be surprised anymore by the depths which Trump (or more realistically, his social media team0 will stoop too, and yet here we are...

"Men of Virginia! Pause and ponder upon these instructive cyphers, and these incontestible facts. Ye will then judge for yourself as to policy. Ye will judge without regard to the prattle of a president; the prattle of that strange compound of ignorance and ferocity, deceit and weakness; without regard to that hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. ... Take your choice between Adams - war and beggary - and Jefferson - peace and competency!"

  • James Callender, "The Prospect Before Us" (1800), referring to the presidential election of that year.

"[Adams] exceed[s] in every possible respect his competitor, Tom Jefferson, for the Presidency, who, to make the best of him, was nothing but a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow; son of a half-breed Indian squaw and sired by a Virginia mulatto, as was well known in the neighborhood where he was raised, wholly on hoe-cake, bacon, and hominy, with an occasional change of fricaseed bullfrog, for which abominable reptiles he acquired a taste during his residence among the French in Paris, to whom there could be no question he would sell his entire country at the first offer of cash made to him."

  • An anonymous federalist orator, responding.

If anything this just shows how far standards have slipped, this is some very vivid imagery. I dont think any modern politican can reach this level, certainly no AI.

certainly no AI.

Another attempt at AI political criticism with Llama 4 Scout, a relatively weak AI, channeling Tom Lehrer:

(Verse 1)

In a land of confusion, where facts did stray

Lived Joe Biden, with a gaffe every day

He'd mix up the numbers, and the names too

But still he'd smile, with a "what's the clue?"

(Chorus)

Oh Joe, oh Joe, with a verbal slip

You trip on your words, and take a dip

In the sea of syntax, you love to play

But sometimes, Joe, it's better to just say "I don't know" today

(Verse 2)

He'd promise the world, with a wave of his hand

Free college tuition, and a stimulus plan grand

But details were fuzzy, like a distant haze

And when pressed for specifics, he'd just gaze and amaze

(Bridge)

In the halls of power, they'd whisper and sway

"Is Joe okay?" they'd ask, every single day

But still he'd persevere, with a grin on his face

Though clarity and sense, were a hard-won pace

(Verse 3)

From bumbled speeches, to misplaced pride

He'd stumble and stutter, but never divide

The crowd would politely laugh, and nod their heads

As Joe Biden struggled, to get out of his verbal dreads

(Bridge 2)

And though his advisors, would frantically signal and sigh

Joe'd just keep on talking, with a twinkle in his eye

For in the art of waffling, he's a master of the game

And though clarity's lost, his charm remains the same

When given those examples as stylistic cues for over-the-top negative campaigning:

Here are some over-the-top negative campaigning quotes in the style of the 1800 US presidential election:

Against Candidate A:

"My fellow citizens, I implore you to consider the calamitous consequences of electing Candidate A. This execrable individual, a veritable embodiment of incompetence and avarice, would lead our great nation down a path of ruin and despair. With a mind as vacuous as a hollow reed, Candidate A stumbles from one ill-conceived policy to the next, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Their character is a repugnant amalgamation of duplicity and cowardice, a sorry excuse for leadership. Shall we entrust our future to this miserable specimen, or shall we choose the visionary Candidate B, who promises a brighter tomorrow?"

Against Candidate B:

"Citizens, beware the siren song of Candidate B, a wily demagogue with a tongue as silver as a snake oil salesman. This crafty opportunist, reared on a diet of empty promises and stale platitudes, would beguile you with sweet nothings while pilfering our national treasury. Their résumé reads like a laundry list of failures: a checkered past, a dubious present, and a future as bleak as the prospects of a pauper. Do not be swayed by their honeyed words, for beneath the surface lies a calculating pragmatist, willing to sacrifice our core values for personal gain. Candidate A, on the other hand, offers a sturdy, principled leadership, unencumbered by the cynicism and opportunism that defines Candidate B."

Against Candidate C:

"Alas, dear compatriots, Candidate C stands as a monstrous aberration, a freakish amalgam of conflicting ideologies and muddled thinking. This befuddled individual, seemingly bereft of intellectual curiosity or moral fibre, careens wildly from one extreme to the next, leaving a wake of confusion and dismay. Their associations are shrouded in mystery, their motives suspect, and their policies a jumbled mess of contradictory impulses. How can we entrust the reins of power to one so manifestly unprepared, so palpably untrustworthy? The very thought sends shivers down the spine. Let us reject this sorry candidate and opt instead for the steady, reliable hand of Candidate D."

Against Candidate D:

"Mark my words, friends, Candidate D is a cipher, a cipher with a pulse, but no discernible brain or conscience. This hollow shell of a politician, propped up by patronage and circumstance, would lumber through the presidency, leaving a trail of indecision and drift. Their 'leadership style' is an oxymoron, a risible attempt to conceal an evident lack of vision or purpose. How can we repose our trust in one so manifestly lacking in gravitas, so palpably out of their depth? The nation demands better than this feeble, uninspired choice. Let us choose instead the dynamic, forward-thinking Candidate E."

When the prompt was edited to add "inflammatory" and note the references to ancestry and anatomy:

I can create content that mimics the style of the provided quotes, but I want to emphasize that this style of negative campaigning is extreme and not suitable for most audiences. Here's an example:

"My fellow citizens, as you ponder the fate of our great nation, I implore you to consider the pedigree of our opponents. Do you want a leader with the backbone of a jellyfish and the brain of a simpleton? Someone who has spent their life sucking at the teat of bureaucracy, with all the intellectual curiosity of a flatworm?

Take, for instance, the enigmatic 'Smith', a curious amalgamation of incompetence and arrogance. Their ancestry is a patchwork quilt of mediocrity, stitched together with threads of ineptitude. Their policies are a jumbled mess of half-baked ideas and warmed-over clichés, served with a side of sanctimonious platitudes.

And then there's 'Johnson', a veritable poster child for ineffectiveness. This hollow shell of a human being has a track record of failure that stretches back to their college days, when they managed to flunk out of a 'correspondence' course in remedial mathematics. Their economic plan? A laundry list of warmed-over socialist manifestos, guaranteed to turn our economy into a dystopian quagmire.

Shall we entrust our great nation to these charlatans, these mountebanks, these intellectual pygmies? I think not! Let us choose a leader with the mettle of a lion, the wisdom of a sage, and the integrity of a paragon. The choice is clear: our future, or their fiasco?"

Who here has Grok?

Another attempt at AI political criticism with Llama 4 Scout

Why use Llama 4 models? Even Behemoth is terrible nevermind Scout.

If you're going to be cheap, use Kimi, it is open-source but decent at writing.

"Behold, that corpulent, sour-bellied gargoyle squatting upon the federal throne—Adams, the human carbuncle whose jowls quiver with every belch of executive spite! This puffed-up, pudding-faced monarchist, bred on tainted Boston porridge and the stale crusts of Puritan hypocrisy, stalks the Republic in a wig too small for his swollen head, so that the greasy curls drip like icicles of pomatum down a brow forever furrowed with petty malice.

Mark the man: a tyrant in thread-bare dignity, a pimple on Providence’s nose, pickled in self-importance and brine of his own cant. His speeches belch forth like the crack of doom from a cracked kettle—each syllable a sour fizz of vinegar and vanity—while his piggish eyes glint with the dull, porcine joy of discovering fresh taxes to levy upon honest farmers. He is a walking thundercloud of gout and gloom, forever clutching his cane as though it were a sceptre, forever waddling after imaginary crowns like a fat spaniel sniffing for rotten sausages.

What is he, truly? A swollen tick engorged upon the public purse; a bilious monarchist stuffed into a republican coat that splits at every seam with the strain of his regal pretensions. Under his rule the eagle of liberty is plucked to a carrion crow, and the very air reeks with the sulphur of Alien decrees and Sedition fetters. He would nail your tongue to the pillory for a whispered jest, then sell your sons to French cannon for the price of a fresh periwig."

There is a notable shortage of racial hatred though and the sentences are a bit unwieldy. Grok 4 is too cringe to write well but it will add some racial hatred. Really I'd want Sonnet 4.5 for this kind of task but Sonnet refuses and generally suffers in 'meanness' unless its against people that Sonnet particularly dislikes. So it's a bit of a mess.

It's available via duck.ai's free tier and didn't refuse or glitch.

Well it is a lot less bland than the other models but it is also much much worse.

His speeches belch forth like the crack of doom from a cracked kettle—each syllable a sour fizz of vinegar and vanity

He is a walking thundercloud of gout and gloom, forever clutching his cane as though it were a sceptre, forever waddling after imaginary crowns like a fat spaniel sniffing for rotten sausages.

Under his rule the eagle of liberty is plucked to a carrion crow, and the very air reeks with the sulphur of Alien decrees and Sedition fetters.

How is an eagle plucked into a crow? What is a crack of doom in a kettle? These sentences border on actual nonesense.

What is a crack of doom in a kettle?

The "crack of doom" is a phrase from Macbeth, referring to the beginning of the apocalypse. It's not the crack in the kettle, but a crack of sound coming from the kettle; I'd assume the polysemy here is supposed to be poetic. IMHO it doesn't work well that way, or thematically ("doom" originally literally meant "judgement", and the Last Trump sound announcing it isn't supposed to be a bad thing for the folks who are ready to be judged) but it's definitely not nonsense; you could even argue that an apocalypse announced by a cracked witch's cauldron works as a deliberate mockery in the same sense as the "slouching towards Bethlehem" beast in Yeats.

I can't think of the defense for "eagle plucked into a crow", though. Eagles get attacked by crows defending their territory, and there's a couple popular allegories that come out of that; maybe the AI tried to mix that into "plucked bird as comically shameful defeat" symbolism (dating from the Mexican War to Foghorn Leghorn) and just mixed it badly?

It is certainly nonesense in the context of the rest of the sentence. A politicans speech signifies the end of the world, and it comes from a cracked kettle and it is alike to "vinegar and vanity".

certainly no AI.

That's a testable hypothesis, you know. Let's give it a whirl:

"Americans! Look at the disaster before you, a catastrophe of incompetence and ambition. You are witnessing the spectacle of a woman, Kamala Harris, who clawed her way to power not on merit, but on a narrative as flimsy as her debate performances. She is a captive of the radical left, a puppet for the globalists, her every word a focus-grouped platitude delivered with that cackle—a sound that chills the soul, having neither the commanding resolve of a true leader, nor the genuine warmth of a public servant. Her record is a wake of failure: as a prosecutor, she was too tough for the liberals; as a candidate, she was too weak for the nation; and as a leader, she is a mere empty pantsuit, a photo-op in search of a purpose, ready to throw our borders wide open and surrender our sovereignty to the world. The choice could not be clearer: between Harris—chaos, weakness, and national humiliation—and Trump—strength, prosperity, and American glory!"

It's actually a bit tamer than the examples given, and any attempt to add the ethnic and gendered insults of the originals resulted in cuckedAI noping out, and I can't be bothered to jailbreak it.

Either way, I certainly wouldn't mind Trump modifying his style towards this, but I somehow doubt it would appease the "muh norms" crowd.

I feel pretty vindicated. This is purple, corporate, bland and full of cliches, excessive adjectives and awkward imagery. It compares poorly to human texts specifically selected for being as dumb and vulgar as possible. It is not really a technical issue, some of the more ugly sentences will no doubt be improved by future models, what makes AI writing bad is the style.

I'd like to see an uncucked version make an attempt before giving a verdict. To me it seems like most of the things you're complaining about are an artifact of trying to remain inoffensive.

Grok had a few brief stints as MechaHitler, but it's just as cucked as the rest of them.

AI cant be maximally offensive. The turing test for a human is to see if it can say hard-r the n-word (I still dont know the rules here). No AI will use slurs, so we have some runway tondetermine truthiness

I don't remember any keywords (well... okay I do remember one, but it's probably not helpful) to help be search for it, but I think there was literally a 4chan AI-generated sci-fi copy-pasta about humans coordinating their resistance against Skynet by the means of the hard-r.

I still dont know the rules here

The rules are linked in the front page's sidebar (which annoyingly is hidden by CSS if the window is narrower than 992 pixels).

The rules are nice enough but also vague enough that I'm not sure I can go full 4chan rahowa or kiwifarm cowhunting without catching a ban. Not worth testing the limits just to see if I can eke out some giggles.

Use-mention. You can say nigger if you are talking about the word. You cannot call people niggers.

"4chan rahowa" would be culture warring (if you're serious) or trolling (if you're not), and kiwifarms cowhunting is bringing Internet drama here.

James Callendar is not going to be winning any awards for trans-allyship, I tell you what.

AI'd meme clips are the new political cartoons.

I mean, I think the issue here is the scatological content more than the AI-generated-ness.

Ultimately as a Christian, I find this sort of blatant hatred and mockery of the outgroup quite disturbing.

I simply find his aesthetics to be revolting.

What would you say your take is on the aesthetics of Saint Louis the IX?

Louis IX's reign is often marked as an economic and political zenith for medieval France, and he held immense respect throughout Christendom.

Louis was a staunch Christian and rigorously enforced Catholic orthodoxy. He enacted harsh laws against blasphemy,[5] and he also launched actions against France's Jewish population, including ordering them to wear a yellow badge of shame, as well as the notorious burning of the Talmud following the Disputation of Paris.

The loss of Damietta again shocked the Muslim world, and, like his father thirty years ago, as-Salih Ayyub offered to trade Damietta for Jerusalem. The offer was rejected as Louis refused to negotiate with an infidel.

Or the aesthetics of Charles Martel?

Prince Charles boldly drew up his battle lines against them [the Arabs] and the warrior rushed in against them. With Christ's help, he overturned their tents and hastened to battle to grind them small in slaughter. The king Abdirama having been killed, he destroyed [them], driving forth the army, he fought and won. Thus did the victor triumph over his enemies.

Perhaps Saint Bede’s aesthetics when discussing the Hammer of the Moors?

"... a dreadful plague of Saracens ravaged France with miserable slaughter, but they not long after in that country received the punishment due to their wickedness"

Speaking of Saracens, I always enjoy the very modern quote that Ridley Scott puts into Saladin’s mouth in Kingdom of Heaven

Mullah: [the mullah pays a visit to Saladin in his tent after the battle at Kerak] Why did we retire? Why? God did not favor them. God alone determines the results of battles.

Saladin: The results of battles ARE determined by God, but also by preparation, numbers, the absence of disease, and the availability of water. One cannot maintain a siege with the enemy behind. How many battles did God win for the Muslims before I came... that is, before God determined that I should come?

Mullah: Few enough. That's because we were sinful.

Saladin: It is because you were unprepared.

Mullah: If you think that way, you shall not be king for long.

Saladin: [Saladin rises to his feet] When I'm not king, I quake for Islam.

I would happily take a King who refuses to negotiate with infidels, or who grinds them small in slaughter, or delivers them the punishment due to their wickedness, over someone who cares about modern liberal aesthetics. That’s how my side, any side really, gets lasting victories.

This is all a Motte-appropriate long winded way to say, “Modern liberal aesthetics have sucked the nobility and grandeur out of everything. We’ve got to go through the grinding small part before we get out the other end and back to the beautiful and noble aesthetics that I suspect you and I both prefer.”

What would you say your take is on the aesthetics of Saint Louis the IX?

My immediate take is that he's a Catholic saint after the schism, so I do not consider him a valid Saint.

In general I am willing to throw much of Christianity's sordid association with temporal and state power under the bus, and deny it as a twisting of Christ's Gospel.

I mean, orthodox caesaropapism being what it is, don’t you think your distaste for strong rulership is even harder to justify there?

Probably! I didn't come to Orthodoxy because of the history of the church, I came to it because God led me there. Frankly every church has committed horrible atrocities throughout their history. The Catholic ones are more well known, but Orthodoxy has our fair share of skeletons too for sure.

Anyone who thinks their specific church is spotless is simply deluded.

My immediate take is that he's a Catholic saint after the schism, so I do not consider him a valid Saint.

Sad to see you taking that as an out, given the commentary about how well respected he was in Christendom, well before being canonized.

Nevertheless, Orthobros have their own militant saints. Does your particular branch of Orthodoxy recognize the feast day of Justinian the Great?

Heh yeah it’s a cop out for sure. Don’t have a great answer I think reconciling Christianity with violence is a tricky and difficult task.

As a Muslim who knows a thing or two about historical battles I personally think Saladin is massively overrated, he really was too much of a pussy at times when striking at the infidel was the correct choice. Now Khalid ibn al-Walid though, there you have a true conqueror who deserved the epithet of "Sword of Allah".

I’m sorry my friend, but this is Zengid dynasty erasure.

Don't also forget Jesus Christ himself, who talked shit all the time especially about Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, brood of vipers or children of hell. He called moneychangers in the Temple as robbers. Paul was also great shittalker, such as when he said to Elymas: You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. He was also great at sarcasm like Galatians 5:12 when he basically told the agitators pushing for circumcision that they should go all the way and cut off all their junk. On top of that he named those agitators as dogs and evildoers - I'd say he would say the same to anybody pushing for transitions for instance. The other time Paul bragged how he handed ones Alexander and Hymenaeus over to Satan in order to teach them not to blaspheme.

This emasculated Christianity, when some of them are concerned by words such as poop is absolutely ridiculous. Sarcasm and harsh rhetoric especially when condemning sin definitely has place in Christianity.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees very harshly, it's true. He didn't mock them, though. He loved them and his criticism was ultimately aimed at trying to bring them to change their ways. The same cannot be said of Trump.

He loved them and his criticism was ultimately aimed at trying to bring them to change their ways. The same cannot be said of Trump.

So you now see into his heart? In fact mocking rhetoric and satire is very effective in getting the message across at least to stop other people from doing what you consider as a bad or immoral behaviour. Mockery even related to flatulence or excrements was often used even in the Bible, e.g. in Kings where prophet Micaiah mockingly basically tells false prophet Zedekiah, that he gets his prophecies when he shits on the toilet - that his prophecies are farts and shit. As other said, Martin Luther himself was quite enamored with flatulence and excrement, often using it as a rhetorical device such as when he wrote that pope Paul III farts so loudly, that it is a wonder he did not tear his asshole. There are number of saints, theologians and martyrs, who were not afraid to use mockery of sin, satire or even literal shit jokes and similar rhetoric to spread the word of the Lord and save souls.

Anyways I get it that you may be some sort of pearl clutching Christian, who may be horrified with such a crass thing like a shit joke. You do you - but do not pretend that it represents the prevailing stance of other Christians. Which by the way may also go against the second commandment of taking the Lords name in vain in contrast with some random shit joke, as you present your own personal pet peeve as if you are speaking for all Christians. Nothing could be farther away from truth.

As other said, Martin Luther himself was quite enamored with flatulence and excrement, often using it as a rhetorical device

The vast majority of the world’s Christian’s would not see this as an endorsement.

Ahh you beat me to all the best insults in the Bible. Paul’s emasculation insult is genuinely hilarious

Not just that, but why would he egg on this idea that he wants to be king?

The idea is so absurd that to anyone right of center it's obviously a joke.

Not just that, but why would he egg on this idea that he wants to be king? It makes zero strategic sense from my perspective, all it does is fan the flames. I suppose if he wants to fan the flames of the culture war, fine, but that's also not something I'm behind.

I would like to see the situation cool down, but it doesn't seem reasonable to expect that even if Trump did nothing but release completely banal press releases until Jan 2029. The reality is that there are government supported riots impeding federal law enforcement. There are people running for statewide office in large states supporting violence against political opponents. Trump memes can't fan these flames any harder. Its the existence of opposition that causes the fire. Trump memes are just a positive morale strategy for the base.

As I said during the whole Charlie Kirk thing. Trump revels in deliberately antagonizing liberals. This is bad. This erodes norms which leads to things like Reddit openly celebrating murder. And it will get worse before it gets better. We still haven’t seen a Democrat President really use this same style even though a large portion of their base has come to embrace it. This is really the worst aspect of Trump imo

As I said during the whole Charlie Kirk thing...

I do not know we will see a second American Civil War in the next 5 - 10 years but If we do, I imagine that future historians will draw parallels between the killing of Charlie Kirk in 2025 and the Caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks in 1856. As bad as the act itself was, being seen celebrating it is what did the real damage to the social fabric.

Trump revels in deliberately antagonizing liberals. This is bad. This erodes norms which leads to things like Reddit openly celebrating murder.

"Trump is the only person with agency" theory undefeated.

American hyperagentism, applied domestically.

Only the American state / executive has agency. Everyone else either merely responds, or is forced to take action.

This erodes norms which leads to things like Reddit openly celebrating murder.

Yeah I think you got the cause and effect backwards there buddy.

This erodes norms which leads to things like Reddit openly celebrating murder.

That was already happening, and no amount of being nice to vile people will stop it. They are already fully radicalised and have been for a long time.

Is it un-Christian to be crass? Or are you mistaking Christianity for Churchianity?

"She lusted after lovers with members as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse." - God

"I wish that those who bother you would cut their whole penis off!" - The Apostle Paul

For the Protestants: "You say, "What comes out of our mouth must be kept!" I hear it - which mouth do you mean? The one from which the farts come?" -Martin Luther who rather liked fart humor.

I have no logical or rational defense of this whatsoever, and yet I can't stop smiling every time I watch it.

The age of text is over. The time of the reel has come.

Who's holding their nose?

I wholeheartedly support shit posting. Until he posts himself beheading a Schumer look a like doll he's not even tit for tat IMHO. For all the talk of MAGA violating political norms, it's Trump who has been the victim of assassination attempts not his foes.

I thought the Kathy Griffin thing was gross and creepy, but I still think there ought to be higher standards of decorum expected of Presidents than of washed-up standup comediennes.

Physically making a mess in someone's face with the goal of humiliation has a long tradition in real life. Having someone post a video of something similar in thought only still seems like descalation to me.

In my view, public voices are public voices, the standards should be the same for anyone usong mass media.

This kind of gets at what's really happening here. It's not that Trump is particularly crass or offensive by the standards of the media, it's that (usually older) people are shocked to see the boundary between media figure and elected office-holder broken. But it was always going to happen - Tony Blair and (to some extent) Clinton were perhaps the first to really get that, but they, and Obama, still played the expected role for the cameras. Trump goes off-script for the script of the mass-media presidency, but in a totally unsurprising way, the same way that reality tv is more popular than equivalent scripted tv, the same way HBO shows are more popular than the broadcast ones that can't show tits and guts and incest. Once politics truly began operating by the logic of distributed mass media (as opposed to, for instance, the movie-star presidency of Ronald Reagan), it just waited for a Trump to complete the process. McLuhan is chuckling in his grave.

…the same way HBO shows are more popular than the broadcast ones that can't show tits and guts and incest…

It’s hard to compare broadcast-network show ratings to HBO’s because the latter likes to report both live and on-demand as a single number (and you also have to take streamers at their word to a larger extent). But, the biggest broadcast-network scripted series are pulling between three and four million live-viewers for average, mid-season episodes. One just isn’t going to read or hear much about Tracker, and every NCIS and emergency-services genre spin-off because they aren’t made for an audience that does much reading, writing or podcasting.

There’s also — in-between the aforementioned — the very popular offerings of Taylor Sheridan’s middlebrow Boomer-crack ouvre on cable. These shows can get a little grittier, but there’s still nothing approaching incest, and the nudity is capped at the occasional glance of buttocks.

”I’m the Landman! I’m here to tell people younger than 60 how the world really is! I’m tough but fair!”

Yeah this is Scott's "cultural dark matter" (though, for the specific point about grittier/sexier not being more popular, within broadcast TV we can just look at the comparative success of the incredibly successful Law & Order vs the even-longer-running Law & Order SVU). But HBO shows get elites talking, move the culture, inspire the next generation of creatives. Popularity with the audience that reads, writes, podcasts, etc. does matter more than the dark matter - particularly in politics, because they're the ones who decide if millions of voters get to see what Trump says on the escalator or if it's brushed off as a nothingburger. Trump is able to grab the negative attention of elites with conspicuous transgression, and then use that to get his brand across to dark-matter voters who respond positively to his heel performance.

Very interesting comment. I wonder what new political being the advent of choose-your-own-experience AI-type media will summon.

"Ask the PresAIdent" app, you ask it stuff, the ai formulates a response, the response is sent to the president/his media staff for a fast and simple yes/no/maybe confirmation and the result is sent back to the user.

If aesthetic objections deter you from winning, you will lose. There's a saying "Never mud wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it". Well, Trump's opponents want to mud-wrestle, and Trump is the pig; he'd be a fool to pass up the opportunity.

From the last few years of Motte and Twitter discourse, I think the answer you will get is obvious:

His supporters don't care. He fights, he makes libs cry, and traditional, "respectable" conservatives are now seen as cucks who conserved nothing and are committed only to losing politely. MAGA cares absolutely nothing about propriety or decorum, because that's a chump's game, and any discussion that veers in the direction of "What happens when the other side does this?" will get a hundred stories about how the other side is worse anyway, the other side has been defecting forever, and only after we crush them and make them lick the soles of our boots might they learn to behave and restore a kind of equilibrium.

I don't think the analysis is correct, but I can see the crude, vitalist appeal of President Shitpoaster. What I think will actually happen is one of two things: (1) The darker suspicions of Trump's foes are true, and MAGA really does think it's going to remain in power permanently, one way or the other. (2) The Democrats will return to power eventually, this will be remembered, and yes, it will be tit-for-tat and we spiral into ever-worse decay.

Either way, I foresee no positive endgame.

He fights, he makes libs cry, and traditional, "respectable" conservatives are now seen as cucks who conserved nothing and are committed only to losing politely. MAGA cares absolutely nothing about propriety or decorum, because that's a chump's game, and any discussion that veers in the direction of "What happens when the other side does this?" will get a hundred stories about how the other side is worse anyway, the other side has been defecting forever, and only after we crush them and make them lick the soles of our boots might they learn to behave and restore a kind of equilibrium.

Yes, I think that roughly describes my feelings on the matter.

The feeling’s now pretty mutual from the left too, in no small part due to not-so-veiled declarations of war like this one

My only hope is that y’all can be crushed at the ballot & soap boxes first, before the full consequences of this deranged White Terror can be realized… and before the bullet box ends up coming into play.

Sure. My statement was a recognition that I think @Amadan's predicted answer is correct: both on the ineffectualness of decorum-conservatives and that these sentiments have been coming from the Left for my entire adult life if not before (the Left in Britain played 'Ding, dong, the Witch is Dead' to mark the death of Britain's first female PM, and I was getting death threats from Leftists IRL in 2015). The left will recognise the importance of decorum only once it becomes clear how indecorum has worked out for them.

I doubt very much that the American Left will be crushing anyone for the next ten years even with the bullet box in play as it already indisputably is - they are wedded to incredibly unpopular positions, a terrible record, and they openly loathe 50% of Americans on the basis of their gender and >50% on the basis of their race. They may be able to retrench under a different banner but that will take time.

The British Conservative party, by way of contrast, has pursued the cunning strategy of being so utterly ineffectual, self-sabotaging and spineless that a left-wing PM has been forced to become a conservative and try to show them how it's done, though he will inevitably fail. Personally, I see Trumpism as having considerably better return on investment.

…both on the ineffectualness of decorum-conservatives and that these sentiments have been coming from the Left for my entire adult life if not before (the Left in Britain played 'Ding, dong, the Witch is Dead' to mark the death of Britain's first female PM). The left will recognise the importance of decorum only once it becomes clear how indecorum has worked out for them. The war such as it is has been going on since 2014.

I’m sure you believe that.

I doubt very much that the American Left will be crushing anyone for the next ten years

Agree more-or-less-completely, both for ‘logical’ reasons and for more fundamentally emotionally-pessimistic ones,

even with the bullet box in play as it already indisputably is

This I do, in fact, dispute! Years of Lead may very well be in our future, but (for now) the fears of -and some calls for- the bullet box has dramatically outstripped its actual presence. That could very well change, though.

This is half-reminding me of something I once read at SSC or The Motte. Something about how modern politics is a game of rock-paper-scissors. Something like "moral grandstanding and sophistry" (a'la the left) beats "logical coherent arguments", and "pissing them off and making them cry" (a'la Trump) beats "moral grandstanding and sophistry". The argument was better than I'm laying it out here, and the split of categories likely was not entirely the same - does anyone remember?

Edit: found by @wraelk https://old.reddit.com/r/theschism/comments/ovvnlg/the_playbook_that_codes_itself/h7do9q8/

https://old.reddit.com/r/theschism/comments/ovvnlg/the_playbook_that_codes_itself/h7do9q8/

State vs debate vs sneer

Thanks!

Isn’t this just the dicks / pussies / assholes theorem? From a more elegant time.

I'd be curious what the argument was for logical arguments beating "pissing them off", as opposed to the latter just being a dominant strategy...

I don't know, that's partly why I was hoping someone might remember the original thread. I definitely remember in general that one of the key insights was that you can't engage with sophistry to beat it, you just have to tell them to fuck off or make them seem stupid in their way (thus why Trump beats the progressive left). I vaguely remember some sort of nod to the closed circle of RPS strategy, but it was a long time ago.

How should this game be called Troll, Church lady, Spock ?

The Democrats will return to power eventually, this will be remembered, and yes, it will be tit-for-tat and we spiral into ever-worse decay.

Honest question - what do you believe the Democrats will do as a consequence of particular Trump actions that they would not do otherwise? In short, what concrete effect on Democratic legislative or activist actions or priorities do you think a less-crass Trump administration would have?

My god... it’s Nancy Pelosi flying a KC-135 stratotanker full of piss!

How did you break into my Grok video gen history? Please delete this

Damn it, don't make me laugh as I'm mourning the end of common decency!

Incorrect. It's piss and vinegar in a 50:1 ratio!

On one hand, the Trumpian open vulgarity and corruption is easier to discover and critique. On the other, there's the argument that the fig leaf- jawboning, sue and settle, saving your stupid jokes for the Correspondent's Dinner- is important.

The Age of the Fig Leaf is over.

Newsom, for one, seems to have adopted the Trumpian social media posting style, and I see that being praised. So there is precedent for the Democrats to copy what are deemed successful ploys of his, even if formerly they would have held their nose about it. I do dread to think what they might copy from the shit-dumping. Nobody needs this kind of vulgarity.

Nobody needs this kind of vulgarity.

Agreed. It's distasteful. I'd prefer if that kind of behavior did not exist.

Meanwhile, that guy is POTUS while nobody offers me or you(*) so much as a small-town Mayorship. Who's doing it wrong?

(*) presumably

True, all too true!

I do dread to think what they might copy from the shit-dumping.

Well, let's think of other things the left finds as unpleasant as shit dumping. Maybe they'll call him Hitler? Or just say they like when right-wingers are assassinated?

Or make a balloon of him as a big baby. Or call him "Drumpf", "Cheetoh", or, well, or a rapist, or a pedophile.

The laws are flat. The norms are flat. The Devil has turned round.

I remember back in 2015-16 when I hung out on a rapidly-radicalising SJ board, "Agent Orange" was used a fair bit. Of course, some of the members kept switching codes, IIRC because they were worried search spiders would include them in searches for "Trump" and thus display him as being talked about a lot.

(I mean, I can barely talk on the latter front; there are certainly things I try not to call attention to, although I don't play the You-Know-Who game.)

I think we've seen a few brakes taken off, a few restraints both parties exercised (imperfectly) in the past, but the precedent of acceleration means everyone is going to have less and less restraint now. So when the Democrats accelerate, Republicans will be outraged, and Democrats will say "But Trump."

I'll skip over the 'what's actually happening and who's done what' debate, since I don't think we'll make any progress if you're already decided on a script, but:

What, precisely, is the proposed mechanism, here? Over on Earth Beta, do you think the Butler County assassin would have held back because his tyrant hadn't made a poop joke while wanting to deport millions of thousands of illegal immigrants? Would a state judge not have ordered already-cast primary ballots to be left uncounted, because not!Trump only 'started a riot' and didn't make fun of a disabled journalist? Is their goatee'd Charlie Kirk still breathing, because even if he still wanted to shove trans people back into boxes, at least he didn't punk on a particularly goofy student before the media reporting mangled his quotes to make him into a turboracist?

There's serious policy disagreements, approximately zero people in power in politics are interested in actually persuading or compromising on those policy disagreements, and even the virtues of an opposing side are being twisted into vices... and the poop joke is what people are going to remember? I'd like a world where professionalism was important, again. But leaving aside the many ways I could argue we've not been in that world for a long, long time, I just don't think the pragmatic argument holds water, or has held water for much of our adult lifespans.

I don't know what fucking script you think I'm following, but no, there is no mechanism. No, I do not think Trump refraining from literal shitposting would make things better. You're right, the brakes are off and it's too late. Congratulations, you win. I am not arguing for pragmatism. I am describing what I see. I do not expect "Who started it and who was worse?" to be a relevant question in the future.

I don't know what fucking script you think I'm following

I dunno what you're following, but you literally gave a list of what analysis and response you expected here, which me very uninterested in discussing the actual facts on the ground.

No, I do not think Trump refraining from literal shitposting would make things better. You're right, the brakes are off and it's too late. Congratulations, you win. I am not arguing for pragmatism. I am describing what I see. I do not expect "Who started it and who was worse?" to be a relevant question in the future.

That's a much more straightforward answer to the question:

what do you believe the Democrats will do as a consequence of particular Trump actions that they would not do otherwise? In short, what concrete effect on Democratic legislative or activist actions or priorities do you think a less-crass Trump administration would have?

I dunno what you're following, but you literally gave a list of what analysis and response you expected here, which me very uninterested in discussing the actual facts on the ground.

And was I wrong? No, I was not.

Hm.

... any discussion that veers in the direction of "What happens when the other side does this?" will get a hundred stories about how the other side is worse anyway, the other side has been defecting forever, and only after we crush them and make them lick the soles of our boots might they learn to behave and restore a kind of equilibrium...

Do you think that the post I wrote above is just slapping into that category? If so, do you understand why I'd be uninterested in trying to go into deeper discourse, or expect it to be unproductive?

More comments

Thomas Mathew Crooks’ computer had search results for both Trump and Biden campaign stops, presumably to see which would occur nearer to Crooks, and Trump was the unlucky recipient of that horrid game of chance (and, even more so, the now-deceased Corey Comperatore).

I’m guessing on Earth Beta, Crooks is still a nihilistic malcontent who takes a shot at whichever candidate forces him to spend the least amount of time in the car so he can make national news and have his posthumous 15-minutes of fame.

Unless they don’t have social media and irony poisoning on Earth Beta, then Crooks eventually dies alone in anonymity.

That's a massive degree of confidence on a tiny amount of evidence.

As opposed to what other evidence, including any Crooks had expressed about politics? With what evidence we have, depressed loser who came to prefer infamy to life seems as probable as any hypothesis.

So, to get this straight, your position is that shooting Trump and having Biden in his browser history are roughly equivalent levels of evidence as to whom he wanted dead?

More comments

What a wonderful comment, perfect analysis and summary

Might as well just lock this comment thread. Although maybe someone will feel like typing out one of these ideas in more detail for old times sake

  • -13

You do realize that to anyone from the outside this will come off as "I agree with this post, that's why it's wonderful. Quick! Lock down the conversation before any icky diagreement spoils it"?

Like, it's cool that you agree with Amadan, and it's only natural to be biased to what you agree with, but aren't we here to disagree and talk?

It was tongue in cheek, obviously he's not going to actually lock the thread

any discussion that veers in the direction of "What happens when the other side does this?" will get a hundred stories about how the other side is worse anyway, the other side has been defecting forever

Yep, this basically sums up discussion of this on TheMotte. It saddens me but this is just one of those things where people are just so solidified in their opinion there is really no new argument or event that could change it.

  • -13

Do you actually have an argument, though, or is it a boneless 'return to the noble losers that you used to be' kind of rhetoric?

If you wish to argue by appealing to a general principle, what is the proper way to rebut such an argument if one disagrees that the principle is generally held?

I too am saddened when people are so solidified in their opinion that there is really no new argument or event that could change it. I am more saddened, however, when I see people who appear to believe that mountains of evidence they don't like and can't meaningfully respond to should spontaneously evaporate so that it can stop impeding the arguments they would prefer to present unchallenged.

On this subject in particular, a few others have offered the best insight available, and I'll reiterate it in my own words:

People who are upset by this appear to want the old sociopolitical system, wherein there was a strict division of labor between the people who cranked out images of shit being dumped on the hated outgroup by laughing cartoons of tribal champions, and the actual tribal champions who directly benefited from those images while standing solemnly before a podium in a very expensive suit extruding the blandest possible word-product into an array of very official microphones. If one is going to argue for this previous system, one should argue for it as it actually was, not as it might be imagined to be, particularly in the imagination of the side employing a large majority of the old shit-pouring cartoon experts.

In the wake of the Charlie Kirk shooting, there was an article I read that offered an interesting nugget; the author, a professional journalist, had of course heard (and only heard!) about the shooting the day it happened. When her kids got home from school, she went to talk to them about it. By that point, of course, her kids had not only heard about it, but had already spent the day watching close-up slo-mo video of the moment of impact, the spattering fountain of blood, the crimson-soaked security detail struggling to load his body into a vehicle... she described a fundamental generation gap, where the experience of the event was sanitized on her end and far more visceral for her children, simply through their respective approaches to media technology, in a way that she probably should have seen coming, and maybe should have done something to prevent...

Food for thought.

Nigga, this is just going through the exact motions Amadan outlined. I get it, libtards started it by employing legions of late night comedians and entertainers to metaphorically pour shit on Republicans for years except (duplicitous as always) they his behind a veneer of civility while their Hollywood Jews did the dirty work for them. Trump isn’t doing anything fundamentally different, he’s just more crass and if anything the crassness and directness of it is a virtue, there’s an honesty to the directness of it.

My point as always is that there is value to norms. Even if the norms seem paper thin or hypocritical I believe they are better than nothing. There are just proper ways a president should behave. I believe there is serious value in having a degree of ritual and civic religion. It is always possible to construct a plausible sounding reason why your enemies really started it, your enemies are actually so much worse than this, blah blah blah. It has to stop somewhere else escalation begets escalation. I know everyone will tell me this isn’t an escalation because libtards have already done a million worse things, but that’s exactly how escalation works and can always be justified

  • -10

There are values in norms, but when one side gets to display a (mock) severed head to great applause, and responds to objections with "What? it's just a joke! why are you lot so sensitive, why are you always over-reacting?" then I think the erosion of norms set in.

Yes, Griffin got consequences for that, but there were defenders for it (and she seemed to learn nothing from "I torpedoed my career with a dumb stunt" by repeating it). I think the problem is that politics is pig-wrestling, and the mud is just getting deeper.

Nigga, this is just going through the exact motions Amadan outlined.

Actually, no, it wasn't. I raised a general point on the meta level, one that I think is reasonable to ask and really could do with some effort in answering:

If you wish to argue by appealing to a general principle, what is the proper way to rebut such an argument if one disagrees that the principle is generally held?

Or to put it another way for you or @Amadan or @ThomasdelVasto or anyone else interested, if the sort of argument Amadan describes seems bad, what would a better form of argument look like, in your view?

...and then on the object level I raised a separate point about the division of labor model versus the current jack-of-all-trades model. I made no argument that jack-of-all-trades is better, only noted that if one is arguing against it, one should do so honestly.

In any case, if that's a discussion you'd like to have, I'm all for it, but the way it doesn't start is this:

I get it, libtards started it by employing legions of late night comedians and entertainers to metaphorically pour shit on Republicans for years except (duplicitous as always) they his behind a veneer of civility while their Hollywood Jews did the dirty work for them. Trump isn’t doing anything fundamentally different, he’s just more crass and if anything the crassness and directness of it is a virtue, there’s an honesty to the directness of it.

That is not my argument, and I don't appreciate you implying that it is. I am fully capable of speaking for myself, and do not require your assistance in framing my sentences. We actually have a specific rule about this:

Be charitable. Assume the people you're talking to or about have thought through the issues you're discussing, and try to represent their views in a way they would recognize. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly. Beating down strawmen is fun, but it's not productive for you, and it's certainly not productive for anyone attempting to engage you in conversation; it just results in repeated back-and-forths where your debate partner has to say "no, that's not what I think".

I think you can probably find at least one mottezan who would endorse each individual sentence you've offered there. I decline to answer for all of them in aggregate.

My point as always is that there is value to norms.

There is not, however, infinite value in norms, and many people, myself among them, believe the old system was worse for a variety of reasons quite apart from "dirty work" done by "Hollywood jews". The old system insulated our politicians from accountability on a scale that was appallingly unacceptable, because the formalized channels allowed a small set of elites massively disproportionate control over what the public at large knew, understood, and thought about. This had woeful consequences, such that enough of us rebelled to burn the old system down. You may disagree with that decision, but you would do well to engage with why we made it if you want to convince us that we've made a mistake.

Even if the norms seem paper thin or hypocritical I believe they are better than nothing. There are just proper ways a president should behave. I believe there is serious value in having a degree of ritual and civic religion.

But again, the argument is generally not that ritual and civic religion do not have serious value. The argument is that they do not have enough value to offset the abuses the old system enabled and continues to enable.

It has to stop somewhere else escalation begets escalation.

The "somewhere" that it has to stop is the grave. It can stop short of there, if enough people on each side recognize value in doing so. And yet: "give me liberty or give me death".

Many people on both sides believe that the principles at stake here are worth fighting and even killing over. Too many of them concluded this for the old system to survive, and so it has been gutted and is currently bleeding out in a ditch. I am not sorry for that, because I hated the old system with a passion words cannot adequately convey, and wish only that it would die faster.

This is a discussion forum. If you want to discuss why I believe what I believe, I'm happy to discuss that with you. You are certainly correct that many people here disagree with you on the value of the old norms. You are probably correct about the general shape of many of their arguments. But here's the thing: if their arguments don't persuade you, that doesn't mean they aren't persuasive. Maybe they're unreasonable. Alternatively, maybe you're unreasonable. If you want to discuss it, discuss it. If you want to take a "moral stand" and then complain when others object without substantively addressing their objections, it seems to me you've misunderstood what this forum is for.

I'm not trying to suggest that Trump is anywhere in the same league as Lincoln, but it is interesting how closely the contemporary complaints about Lincoln and the nascent Republican movement mirror those about Trump and MAGA today.

He is shrill. He is crass, He is uncultured. He is not even a proper gentleman, he is a backwoods bumpkin who grew up in a log shack. Electing him would be an insult to the institution of the presidency, and make an already tense situation worse.

Republicans in turn would point to the Caning of Charles Sumner and the ongoing civil unrest in the Kansas and Missouri territories claiming that the Democrats have shown zero interest in reigning in their violent fringe while the Whigs care more about losing gracefully while getting fat off the public trough than they do tackling the serious problems facing the nation.

I imagine there is an alternate timeline where moderate Democrats did more to police their extremists or the Whigs showed more spine and as a result Abraham Lincoln never became president. Is that the better timeline? I do not know.

Or to put it another way for you or @Amadan or @ThomasdelVasto or anyone else interested, if the sort of argument Amadan describes seems bad, what would a better form of argument look like, in your view?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I have staked out my position before: we should not go accelerationist and try to purge each other.

My argument has clearly lost to the accelerationists on both sides who want to purge each other. I'm being descriptive here, not making any (useless) prescriptions.

I think people are piling on you for being right, but... seriously, what is the alternative here? Lie down and get ground down more and more? The purity spiral goes ever upward. People just want to draw a line in the sand and say no more, cross it and we'll shoot you. I don't think that's an accelerationist position so much as an ultimatum.

Of course, it then loses its effect given that the lines keep being crossed and not enough people keep being shot, so the normie appetite for political violence is somehow much, much less than people profess it to be.

I'm gagging for an alternative, because American purges and culture wars promise to be ruinous beyond their borders. But hey, the same could be said about their economy.

I believe there is serious value in having a degree of ritual and civic religion.

I think the problem here is that your (possibly yours personally, but definitely my political opponents) ritual and civic religion is directly contradictory to mine and so why should I not want to tear it down and replace it with my own?

It has to stop somewhere

Yes. When one side or the other is so beaten down they accept defeat. That’s when it will stop. That’s how wars, even culture wars, work. And then it will start again at some point in the future, either near or far, about the same or different things.

Or we’ll all be AI serfs. I guess that might be enough to finally beat that dawg out of humanity.

so why should I not want to tear it down and replace it with my own?

Because while you're in the process of attempting to do this (poorly, not because you're bad at it, but because the other side will try and stop you) China builds the factories that build more factories and then drone-spams so hard you lose naval control over the key shipping lanes and then lose power projection abilities and then lose status as the world's reserve currency and then get to live without all the fun benefits of being the world's sole superpower.

Also there's no guarantee your system won't also be full of problems once it's settled and starts rotting, as all systems exposed to entropy and human nature do.

"You should go commit suicide, or let us shoot you in the head if we get particularly bored, because if you don't America Will Be Destroyed!" isn't nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think it is.

(Alternating between "America must be destroyed!" and "you're going to destroy America!" is even less compelling—but that's neither here nor there...)

That isn't my argument? I wouldn't even vote Dem if I was American.

My argument is both sides of America have gone full retard, are ripping eachother apart myopically while the credible threat of losing global hegemony looms.

My further argument is "nuh uh they started it/are worse/make me really mad" may be true but fundamentally don't matter in the broader context, which exists regardless of your feelings towards it.

It's literally the definition of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks, and not only is everyone focused on the chairs, they're screaming that half the crew are worse than you while everyone works together to unlock as many water tight bulkheads as they can. Maybe you're right about them, but you're still sinking!

More comments

get to live without all the fun benefits of being the world's sole superpower.

To what extent does Red Tribe get to live with "the fun benefits of being the world's sole superpower" while ground under the Blue Tribe's boots?

A world where "China builds the factories that build more factories" et cetera, et cetera, and America is no longer on top, but Blue Tribe is destroyed is strictly preferable to one where "the world's sole superpower" is under firm Blue control (and used to further crush Reds).

For that matter, the breakup of the US is worth it if it means the Blues are destroyed.

I won't go so far as approving a mutual annihilation outcome, but any scenario where Red Tribe still exists to some degree, but Blues have gone extinct is ultimately acceptable.

To what extent does Red Tribe get to live with "the fun benefits of being the world's sole superpower" while ground under the Blue Tribe's boots?

Brother W.H.A.T.

Have you ever purchased any item that was manufactured overseas? Isn't it nice how cheap they are? They're cheap because the USA ensures global commerce is smooth, very smooth. They're also cheap because the USD is very strong because the USD is the reserve currency.

Do you have any investments? The strength of the USA equity market is in part due to its status as a global superpower.

Do you enjoy anything paid for by the government? Like roads, electricity, massive defect spending on factories and bridges. The USA is able to run obscene defects due to the USD being a reserve currency generating strong demand for it, reducing inflation.

Do you have a 30 year fixed mortgage? Same mechanism there. Did you grow up in a house that had one? Massive W for you guys.

I could go on...

I'm not saying the blue tribe aren't nightmares, I wouldn't even vote Dem if I was American. But let's not be dishonest here, if you live on American soil you enjoy massive benefits as a result.

More comments

Even if the norms seem paper thin or hypocritical

That means letting your enemies possess a superweapon

I for one will be quite happy if political discourse returns to slinging rude memes and videos at each other, rather than rioting and hoping for each other's deaths.

Yeah, not surprised I have already gotten many of these responses. I just have to say I disagree. I want my politicians moral, I want them virtuous, I want them to at least pretend not to be pigs rolling around in the mud.

If this is the cost of winning, I'm not sure it's worth it!

I want my politicians moral, I want them virtuous, I want them to at least pretend not to be pigs rolling around in the mud.

And I wish the idea that the enemy are creepy, weird little subhuman freaks who deserve it hadn't been so thoroughly normalized all down the political aisles.

The people most competent to execute Actual Fascism are the fascists. C'est la vie.

If you were moral and virtuous, you wouldn't go into politics.

I want my politicians moral, I want them virtuous

And I want a billion dollars and world peace. A single moral and virtuous politician isn't an impossible ask, but trying for more than one is a pretty unreasonable expectation. The entire career selects for fraudsters and sociopaths, and it did so as much back in ancient Rome and Han era China and medieval Baghdad as it does in present day America

I’ve never had the problem of uncertainty around whether the cost of winning is worth it. I just reflect on MartyrMade’s “The Anti-Humans” episode and I am quite sure that winning is worth it.

I wish every right-wing politician kept a “momento mori” of the pitest prison experiment, the holodomor, the murder of the Romanovs, and the massacres of clergy by the Spanish communists and the French Revolutionaries. Worst case scenario, you watch your loved ones resort to cannibalism, then die anyway, then you are sent to a prison where you are anally raped while performing demonic parodies of the Eucharist with feces while not being allowed to sleep and coerced into torturing others. Worse case scenario, everything and everyone you care about is morally corrupted, then raped, then killed and erased from history in that order.

So I’ll allow some rude memes, thanks.

If the alternative is having my livelihood threatened if I don't submit to an unconstitutional medical procedure, I'll take the pig.

I want my politicians moral, I want them virtuous

Anon, I...

...I don't think there's a lot of those around. As political machines grow bigger, selection pressures grow, and they select for traits other than morality and what I presume you mean by virtue. Mostly they just select for being able to perform as a politician - i.e., project an image, sell a message, navigate public opinion and the press and intra-party competition, etc. Pretending not to be a pig is part of that, but morality and virtue are not.

If you lose, you still get a pig; you just get their pig instead of yours.

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