site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25145 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Did you know that Karine Jean-Pierre was a Black LGBTQ Woman? Of course you didn't.

The above link is to KJP's "interview" with the New Yorker. It's exceptionally horrible. I don't usually get too wrapped up in "bad interviews" because journalists routinely use them to get the other party tied up in knots with impossible to answer questions.

The thing about this interview is that Isaac Chotiner isn't even really asking questions. He's mostly politely asking KJP "what do you mean?" and she keeps answering it worse and worse. I'm having a hard time thinking of a worse written interview.

The culture war angles are too obvious. DEI, rejection of reality, identity politics. They're all here. What stuck me those most was the word salad. Trump is always ridiculed for his own word salad but the left, yet, this is the White House press secretary struggling to build cohesive thoughts.

I've held an unprovable theory for many years now that people who routinely hold demonstrably untrue ideas in their head do some sort of literal brain damage to themselves. A sort cognitive self-harm wherein an emotional appeal is so strong that it dulls the synapses. Again, unprovable, but this interview makes me hold that faith just a little more.

Amazing interview. This is probably an unpopular opinion here but.... I love the New Yorker. There really aren't a lot of other publications that are liberal-friendly enough to get this kind of access, but also smart enough to hold them accountable to their bullshit, and subtle enough to jiust let it speak for itself intead of trying to hammer the point into the readers' heads.

Her answers seem like actual double-think straight out of 1984. She's forccing herself to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time (that Biden was an amazing president who did nothing wrong, but Harris was also an amazing candidate who did nothing wrong even though she lost badly). Her loyalty is being proven by how strongly she's able to endorse contradictory postitions with no shame.

I couldn't help knowing because they trotted it out every single time she was ever mentioned. The fact that she was terrible at her job? Not mentioned so much (I did watch one announcement she made as press secretary and it was bad).

So there's another black woman of an immigrant background from the Biden administration who has a book out about how she was right and everyone else was wrong? Well, well, what a surprise!

Reading the interview, the interviewer was on a warpath. KJP seems to have stepped outside the party line with her book and now she needs to be brought to heel or pushed aside. Lines like this from the interviewer:

You’re talking about Biden like loyalty was owed to him. Isn’t loyalty owed to the country?

Wow, what a shitball of a question.

This comes after KJP maintains that the Democrats had no idea if they had a better candidate than Biden. Which has to be considered at least somewhat true. So points to her for that.

Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics? The earnest defense of his honor, whilst admirable, is a political dead end. Suicide, even. She's a fish out of water and the interviewer is hammering on that fact again and again. To a point where it obvious, which KJP picks up on at the end of the interview:

KJP: When I talk about the broken White House in the subtitle, I’m talking about the Trump White House. So what are the Democratic leadership actually doing to beat back and fight back? What are they doing?

IW: I’m not here to answer for the Democratic leadership. I would—

KJP: You’ve been answering for the Democratic leadership. [Laughs.] You were giving me their answers.

I think these final lines sum up the interview quite well. A politically daft operator and a democrat establishment shill embarrassing one another. Sure, KJP was floundering throughout the interview, and I'm sure the book seemed incoherent to those who feel which way the winds blowing politically, but getting caught off guard by a political hitman in a hostile interview can happen to anyone.

To steelman KJP: Running with Biden through the election and then benching him and getting Kamala in as VP was probably the best choice given they did not have a better candidate than Kamala. My guess is that the people behind the scenes got greedy, pushed Biden aside and went with Kamala to their detriment. To that extent, KJP defending the honor of Biden is just as much a political dead end as the interviewers defense of the current democrat establishment. Two political losers fighting over lost scraps.

Reading the interview, the interviewer was on a warpath. KJP seems to have stepped outside the party line with her book and now she needs to be brought to heel or pushed aside.

I think that some claims are more difficult to defend than others. If you write a book without controversial claims, perhaps a work of fiction or a textbook on a well established field, then an interviewer would likely not feel the need to cross-examine you.

But if you published a book about how Trump is secretly a lizardman, I would hate to see an interviewer who just goes "interesting opinion, man".

Claiming that Biden was forced out of the race for some nefarious reasons while he was mentally fine to be president is trying to claim an 'alternative truth'. I hate it when Trump does these things (starting from the size of his inauguration crowd), because I feel that people should strive to agree on facts. I do not like it any better when some lefty makes claims which seem factually wrong, and I applaud efforts to probe if she has extraordinary evidence for her extraordinary claims.

I do not think that "Biden had dementia which made him an unappealing candidate" was a particularly Democratic party line. It was basically the consensus reality. Anyone who pushes back against people trying to make our collective map of reality worse is doing god's work.

To steelman KJP: Running with Biden through the election and then benching him and getting Kamala in as VP was probably the best choice given they did not have a better candidate than Kamala.

I think that by the time of the TV debate, the Democrats had already maneuvered themselves in an unwinnable position. Running with Harris as a candidate was not great, but running with someone who had been seen on TV as suffering from dementia would not have gone better.

I do not think that "Biden had dementia which made him an unappealing candidate" was a particularly Democratic party line. It was basically the consensus reality. Anyone who pushes back against people trying to make our collective map of reality worse is doing god's work.

I think this is overly charitable. The Democratic Party Line up until halfway through the debate was "This is the best Biden has ever been and any suggestions or "video evidence" otherwise are cheap fakes from that liar Trump."

Then the debate happened, and the extent of Biden's decline was at last laid bare before the voting populace, and the movers and shakers in the party acknowledged his dementia just long enough to force him out of the race and replace with Kamala in a Hail Mary effort to not get destroyed down-ballot.

After which the party line flipped to something like "OMG, why are you even talking about this? Who care who was running the country, or how many people told how many lies about it? Trump is old, too!"

The real problem with KJP is that she is still talking about it, and she's not even remotely smart enough to thread the needle of lies there. Quite possibly no one is. Biden's overall situation is bad enough that it ought to be a crippling scandal for the party, and the Democrat Party Line is to simply brazen through on sheer shamelessness, an important part of which is simply pretending it never happened. Writing a book and putting it back into the news cycle because KJP is a sub-midwit who is just blindly following the formula without reading the room, is counter productive to this tactic.

Compare that to Jake Tapper's book on the topic (As an aside, I'm going to need either him or James Clapper to drop out of relevance forever. I'm sick of getting them mixed up because their names rhyme.) Tapper's book was utterly, shamelessly retarded and disingenuous. But it served the purpose of providing a fig leaf for the "Democrat operative with a chyron" media and the Democrat party to pretend they had no role in the scandal and sweep it all under a rug. It let them pull the "We've been over this, it's old news, MoveOn.org" rhetorical trick.

I'd say no one with a brain believed it, but there are plenty of people even here who get very upset about Trump's cheating fuckboy relationship with the truth who seem to mostly not care who was actually running the country for the Biden years, and certainly haven't updated on the degree of known dishonesty that was clearly involved among functionally all high ranking Democrats.

Which brings us back to the real problem with KJP. She gave me a platform and excuse to hammer all that home again, really rub everyone noses in the reminder that Biden's dementia was a scandal a thousand times worse than Watergate, and that anyone who doesn't write off most of the DNC doesn't get to pretend to care about truth and norms ever again. And she did this not just while failing to provide any useful rhetorical chaff, but while making the situation actively worse and also reminding everyone about the consequences of DEI hires.

You’re talking about Biden like loyalty was owed to him. Isn’t loyalty owed to the country?

Wow, what a shitball of a question.

Here is the thing. I can imagine a world where Jen Psaki, much as I disliked her and everything she stood for, takes that question and makes the interviewer deeply regret asking it. I deeply loath her, but I can admit she was good at her job, if you take her job being to make reporters look more stupid than the administration.

Likewise, look at JD Vance, being the current administration's attack dog, going into hostile media environments and generally having pretty good message discipline, as well as being verbally nimble enough to not appear that he's pointing to a deer and calling it a horse. He generally does a pretty solid job making reporters regret asking him questions by making them look stupid.

KJP was, and is, a preposterously stupid individual who was terrible at her job. Her elevation to the position, and the fact that she somehow rode it until the wheels fell off, was probably one of the most obvious signs that nobody was in charge in the Biden administration.

Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics?

I wondered about that, too. Turns out (when I looked it up) that she served as "as the chief of staff for U.S. vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris during the 2020 presidential campaign."

Kamala Harris is making noises about running in 2028 (after a lot of people thought she was dropping out of politics altogether) so I wonder if this is less about Biden and more about positioning herself for Harris maybe hoping to get another job with the second campaign (if it happens)? And part of Harris pitch is loyalty to Biden so anyone hoping to be onside with her has to repeat the message (as much a signal that she can sell the same message Harris is selling as anything).

From Harris' book:

Many people want to spin up a narrative of some big conspiracy at the White House to hide Joe Biden’s infirmity. Here is the truth as I lived it. Joe Biden was a smart guy with long experience and deep conviction, able to discharge the duties of president. On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump on his best.

But at eighty-one, Joe got tired. That’s when his age showed in physical and verbal stumbles. I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the West Coast for a Hollywood fundraiser.

I don’t believe it was incapacity. If I believed that, I would have said so. As loyal as I am to President Biden, I am more loyal to my country.

So the line is Joe was great, but yeah he had to step down, but yeah he was great and while he was president he was fine and that is what matters. It's threading the needle of "was he incapacitated while in office and if so, why didn't anyone speak up about it?" 'No he was fine so I/we didn't have to speak up but later on yeah he got tired and overwhelmed and that's ancient history now'.

To his credit, the interviewer specifically picked up on this:

One could conceivably think that he could do the job through January, 2025, but that it was not wise to think he could do the job through January, 2029, right?

It’s not my place to say.

What do you mean it’s not your place to say?

No, no, no. Wait, I’m answering the question. I did not see anything that would cause me concern. That is my answer.

Except the debate, and the other things that everyone saw?

What I’m saying to you is the debate for me was one time. I had never seen him like that before.

So basically refusing to even answer the (real, 2029) question. Sadly, not new - that was the whole initial bit, was how the Biden campaign would insist "he's fine now" and then go silent when asked if his trajectory was stable enough to last through 2029. The debate wasn't just a shocker because it was at odds with "he's fine now", but also because it established a clear downward trajectory, you didn't even need to extrapolate that much; you could simply look at the 2020 debates and the difference was obvious.

Kamala, by the way, is deliberately cultivating the "I'm going to drop out of politics" angle, it wasn't accidental. She knows that only after losing she can drop the "our politics is broken" line, and thus attempt to curry favor with the disenfranchised "fellow kids". You're probably right about the Harris angle, and furthermore since Kamala obviously doesn't have a good grasp on what kinds of things are actually persuasive, she might even blithely bring KJP back.

It seems worth noting that, while this woman will never be in the limelight again, she clearly wants to stay in dem politics. And absolute, unconditional loyalty to the boss, even retroactively, is... something politicians value.

Except Biden isn't the boss anymore, and she's questioning the judgment of the people who are in charge now. If she had just kept her mouth shut then she might have had a future. Then again, maybe she knew she had no future, and figured her only chance was to criticize D leadership for the election loss.

She's trying to sell books likely because she heard (somewhat incorrectly) that it's a good way to earn money. I mean, who is going to hire her? Maybe some kind of lazy progressive nonprofit, but that seems it.

I mean we can write that off as ‘she’s stupid and bad at her job’.

Except Biden isn't the boss anymore, and she's questioning the judgment of the people who are in charge now.

I wonder. There does seem to be a power struggle going on between the faction of the party that is, let's take Platner as an example: "we need to ditch the more extreme progressive/idpol/lefty stuff and move towards the centre to appeal to a broader set of voters" versus the "hell no we need fifty Stalins" faction right now, in the wake of Harris' defeat.

Look at what Jean-Pierre was saying in that New Yorker interview about black women being the backbone of the party. I think she's pinning her hopes that the progressivists will come out on top, and she's staking her claim: you guys need the black vote, particularly since the Hispanics/Latinos are ditching you for the other lot. You need the blacks and the LGBT+ set, and if you want to make history by having the First Female President, you need Harris instead of (let's say) Newsom.

So she's signalling her loyalty to the party line about "we did nothing wrong, Biden was great, it was sexism and racism that lost the race for Harris not any flaw on her part, and giving in on any of this is throwing the black and queer vote under the bus and appealing to the Nazi fascist element in the party".

I wonder how much influence Biden (or his inner circle) still have. He had a long career in politics, he made a lot of alliances and presumably has a lot of favours still banked. Crossing him or his faction could be a real mistake, while signalling loyalty may be more of a help than we think. Who exactly is in charge of the Democratic party right now? The old guard are hanging on, even while others are attempting to shove them off the stage, and some of the ones wanting to do the shoving are the progressive elements. "I am a queer black woman and if you try to shove me out of the way I will cry racism sexism homophobia" is still a credible threat.

Biden has very little influence. He has cancer, he's bitter at people, he's blamed by almost everyone in turn, his presidential library (a useful barometer) has been receiving hardly any donations, and he never extended much trust to people outside the inner circle in the first place so it's no surprise as there weren't many true-believers to begin with. And he even managed to dumpster his own reputation in record time with stuff like breaking his promise and pardoning his family (handing an invitation to Trump on a golden fucking platter to abuse the pardon power himself). I'm a moderate, I liked Biden as a person, I even liked some of the stuff about his governance, but that last bit alone was more damning that anything else he ever did, in my eyes.

Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics?

The Biden political machine exists post Biden. Biden was in politics for 54 years. Generations of people have worked for him.

Many of those people are continuing to work post Biden, and I'm sure some of them appreciate her loyalty.

I'm glad you posted this. I hate KJP but it was an obviously hostile interview.

If the Democratic establishment is capable of selling vastly incompetent black lesbians down the river again, congratulations to them.

Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics? The earnest defense of his honor, whilst admirable, is a political dead end. Suicide, even.

Biden is clearly relitigating his legacy. Which is why Hunter came out not too long ago or we get comments when Jake Tapper releases a book.

But it is interesting that the two people who seem most willing to public go down with the Biden ship are black women.

It makes some sense with KJP since she'll never get another major role in the party.

But Kamala seems to be making noises like she'll run for something again and she's still providing cover for his health issues. She was also a late addition that wasn't particularly loved in Bidenworld apparently so one wonders what she gains.

To steelman KJP: Running with Biden through the election and then benching him and getting Kamala in as VP was probably the best choice given they did not have a better candidate than Kamala. My guess is that the people behind the scenes got greedy, pushed Biden aside and went with Kamala to their detriment. To that extent, KJP defending the honor of Biden is just as much a political dead end as the interviewers defense of the current democrat establishment. Two political losers fighting over lost scraps.

This is not actually a defense of KJP and her ilk.

What most likely happened was that Kamala was already on the ticket and so could use the money raised. The other issue is that many of the other Democratic candidates that did seem viable saw the situation was a mess and knew they could run in four years (when Trump might have nuked his popularity again) with a full campaign. Once Biden spitefully endorsed Kamala it was especially not worth it.

But that's not the reason it's not a defense of KJP. Another factor was people like Jean Pierre who deliberately tried to poison the well on any sort of contested primary by making it about the denial of a black woman her legitimate role. That was another reason candidates couldn't jump on.

If that had happened, KJP would be complaining again as a black, queer woman.

Interestingly enough, it recently came out that Obama had agreed with Pelosi not to endorse Kamala too soon, as they were hoping for a mini primary. But Pelosi broke her promise early due to peer pressure. Especially since several other would-be opponents took themselves out of contention pretty quickly - I think that fact gets lost a little bit in the narrative, but that was a big deal. Day 1 consisted of Biden and the Clintons endorsing Kamala, Obama publicly urging something more deliberate (but vague), and a few governors including Newsom endorsing. Day 2 was Whitmer and Pritzker and Shapiro and Pelosi. Also, Dean Phillips endorsed but wanted a straw poll or something, but this was ignored. Day 3 was Schumer and Jeffries, and by then it's over. In other words, by the second day there wasn't any frontrunner even considering not backing Kamala, so it's kind of doubtful a primary would even have made sense.

Part of that was not so much about money, but a few filing deadlines that were only a few days away. I'm not completely sure how influential/accurate that point was, though. Ultimately, if a primary was going to happen, Biden would have had to push for it right away.

Interestingly enough, it recently came out that Obama had agreed with Pelosi not to endorse Kamala too soon, as they were hoping for a mini primary.

I'm still only on chapter/day three of Kamala's book (too busy at the moment plus it's not riveting prose) and it's amazing how even this early in the book, it's clear she wanted the job - who the hell lets their brother-in-law make plans for if suppose just say maybe somehow someday you need to replace the boss? and forget all her coy 'oh I didn't want to dwell on it', she never said 'drop it, Tony, this is not how things are done' - and how she didn't need or want no stinkin' primary; it was gonna be her or nobody (there's also the slightest of hints that Obama, as you say, wasn't 300% on board the Coconut Queen Express):

[My brother-in-law Tony West] is also an astute political thinker, working on campaigns since he was a teenager, first for Representative Norm Mineta, then for Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. A year earlier, he had started what he called the “Red File.” With a president in his eighties, he suggested, it would be malpractice on my part to be unprepared if, God forbid, something should happen. In such a traumatic moment, it would be prudent to have a plan for the first twenty-four to forty-eight hours, so people don’t have to make a lot of decisions in the pressure of a crisis. He had thought through the first twenty-five calls I would need to make to world leaders, the first twenty-five to political colleagues, when to make my first statement, and what the rules of transition are. I didn’t want to dwell on such an eventuality: I left it in his hands.

As the pressure for Joe to drop out had mounted, he’d pulled out the Red File and started adding to it. I did not want to be a part of any such discussions, so while Tony was in town for the family weekend, he’d gathered four members of my core team, without me, for a meeting in the pool house*. Tony had opened the meeting saying, “Let’s assume he’s dropping out tomorrow.”

...I knew I had everything I needed to do this. With Joe’s endorsement and more name recognition than anyone else who might challenge, I had the strongest case. I’d also proven in the midterms that I could help flip seats. I had appeal for moderates and independents.

I also had a powerful personal contact list. On the road for the past four years, touring college campuses to build youth support and, more recently, on my tour for reproductive rights, I’d made a point of inviting local elected leaders to my events. Later, I’d have a moment with them, take a picture, have a brief chat. I would meet fifty to a hundred people a day in this way, and I had made it a point to follow up and keep those connections alive. During the delegate selection process, I’d pressed to include people who were my enthusiastic supporters, not just Joe’s—people I’d known for years. I don’t think too many people grasped the strength of the relationships I’d forged. This was not going to be a coronation. It would be the result of years of work.

...I went from call to call with the clarity that comes when stakes are high, stress is through the roof, and there’s zero ambiguity. Some people I called would offer me support and then ask, “What do you think the process should be?”

If they thought I was down with a mini primary or some other half-baked procedure, I was quick to disabuse them. How much more time would it have taken to pull that off? I could imagine the chaos of even trying to decide how to do it, much less actually doing it, as precious days slipped away.

“This is the process. If anyone wants to challenge me, they’re welcome to jump in. But I intend to earn the support of the majority of the delegates and I’m doing it right now.”

I have to laugh about her brother-in-law working for Dukakis, Kerry and Obama campaigns; two out of three that went nowhere is not a great omen for her campaign!

*Given the allegations of how she ran her staff as VP, no way four 'core team members' are gonna have any meetings behind her back if they don't want to be ex-team members. They knew that tacitly, if not explicitly, she's just fine with succession planning and having her brother-in-law draw up a road map for when she is coronated. This is some deniability bullshit in action: "no way I had anything to do with it, I knew nothing, it was all my family members and then suddenly out of nowhere it all became relevant due to circumstances beyond our control". Simultaneously "I was loyal and not scheming behind Joe's back" and "nevertheless, I too was sadly aware of his decline and preparing for the stepping down" so she can appease all sides.

She was also a late addition that wasn't particularly loved in Bidenworld apparently so one wonders what she gains.

The Biden element in the party, if there is one, may still have some influence. Or more that if Jill et al. feel spiteful about what happened, they can make sure she crashes and burns. So trying to placate the Biden partisans is worth it.

Especially if there is the hint that maybe Obama wasn't as enthused about Kamala as she might have liked, which even as early in her book as I am, I am getting. And she definitely has it in for Gavin Newsom, so once again, building alliances to counter her rivals is important:

It became a boiler room, a site for the rolling calls we needed to make right away to secure support from Democratic delegates gathering for our convention in Chicago in less than a month, as well as from the former presidents, elected officials, and labor leaders who would be attending.

...In my notes of the calls:

...Barack Obama: Saddle up! Joe did what I hoped he would do. But you have to earn it. Michelle and I are supportive but not going to put a finger on the scale right now. Let Joe have his moment. Think through timing.

...Gavin Newsom: Hiking. Will call back. (He never did.)

Gavin Newsom: Hiking. Will call back. (He never did.)

Incredible gigachad move. Makes me move him up a notch (to notch 1).

No, move him back down. Newsom did put out an endorsement that same day, and was in fact one of the first to do so, so I wouldn't give him too much credit there. So the inclusion of this text in the book is actually a smear against a potential rival and a mischaracterization. Not that I'm going to cry any rivers about it

Yeah, if he did endorse her, then this is Kamala getting her retaliation in first. She really is planning to run herself, or at least queer the pitch for Newsom. I am now fascinated to know what behind-the-scenes dust-up in California Democratic politics is behind this rivalry. Maybe she was thinking of running for governor herself previously but Newsom out-manoeuvred her there (he did manage to get Biden to throw support behind him during the recall election, which might have been when Kamala got squished, if indeed she was thinking that was her chance; it looks pretty clear they were only willing to let no-hopers* go forward so Newsom would not be seriously challenged).

*E.g. "Kevin Paffrath, YouTuber Real estate broker UFOlogist Opioid Vendor Landlord". UFOlogist? Well, it is California!

Okay, that was 2021, she was VP. Can a sitting VP resign and run for a different office, or is that a no-no? Was she maybe bummed out that, if she had known there would be a recall in 2021, she would have waited for that instead?

State level politics regularly has utter clowns get into surprisingly important backbencher positions that get to jump into the limelight for stuff like that(Texas had an ancient aliens theorist as a criminal justice committee head a couple of congresses ago, because the coalition politics required a democrat and he was the seniormost one without serious delusional higher ambitions. These kinds of stories just happen all the time in state level politics everywhere).

I'm also not sure that Kamala's ego can be discounted from political factors. She's made some poor political decisions in the past and 'it's my turn now' is a known failure mode for prominent democrats.

I'm also not sure that Kamala's ego can be discounted from political factors. She's made some poor political decisions in the past and 'it's my turn now' is a known failure mode for prominent democrats.

I was wondering why the heck she was making remarks about possibly running again. Someone with sense would realise that VP was as high as she is going to get, and that the only reason she got the job is Jim Clyburn and the black caucus demanding quid pro quo for supporting Biden, that it was owed to them to give a black woman the job.

But she may be vain enough to believe all the cope about "greatest candidate ever, sexism and racism and MAGA to blame" and think that the party and the nation are breathlessly waiting for her to announce she'll run again. Hence the dig at Newsom.

What the heck she thinks she's doing re: Buttigieg I honestly have no idea. This far into her book, she's all "oh my great pal Pete" but then she gives an interview about "couldn't possibly pick him for anything, way too gay". That's just begging him to refuse to take her calls in future: "Sorry, Kamala, wouldn't want to get my gay cooties all over your shiny campaign". If she's trying to distance herself, however clumsily, from the LGBT2SQIA+ stuff now that wokeness is on the wane, then okay "Pete too gay" but it's a terrible way to go about it.

It's on a ten-point scale, so notch 1 isn't high praise.

Oh, I think that for California power politics, Newsom has her taped and she knows she can't beat him. That's why I was surprised that she didn't decide to run for governor while he runs for president, but then again maybe the inside baseball there is that his machine is too entrenched to let her have an easy victory there. I am surprised she is willing to take him on, but I guess she's hoping to invoke the power of the narrative around "Which do you, the party of representation and inclusion, want to pick as your public face: a Black and Asian woman or yet another (moderately) rich white guy?"

I saw that interview, and I saw her with Colbert, and also with some other journalist whose name escapes me now, and man oh man this lady does not want to acknowledge that anyone could have any legitimate concerns about Biden. It's like watching the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot - Biden's just resting, see, he's pining for the fjords!

She fried her brain by too much time as Press Secretary, so her habits of deny, deflect, redirect, pretend to be "clear" are too strong when talking to journalists. Kind of fascinating from a psych perspective. I've said this before but most people don't appreciate how much politicians often end up ideologically captured by their own roles. Lots of people have this idea that every politician is a spineless weasel who will say anything to win if it matches their lane, but this is just wrong. Politicians often have silver tongues, but that's because it's an adaptive benefit on average. It doesn't have much to do with their core beliefs. Many, many politicians end up playing a role so long they come to believe it.

Part of me wonders if this is another puzzle piece behind why the Senate and Congress has been having so much trouble recently. Too much time talking to the media, and not nearly enough time locked in a room with each other. Older more historical Congresses, where you literally do need to sit your butt in a seat and listen to the speeches, had some kind of built in incentive to talk with each other, if not compromise. But nowadays, it seems like even if you do meet across the aisle, half the time it has to be in secret. Which is why that blowup a few years back about policing who could show up at certain DC restaurants was actually a big deal.

(Also, Chotiner definitely knew what he was doing posting this, as you can tell by the technically-accurate but definitely-throwing-shade summary line "Karine Jean-Pierre feels that Democrats were so mean to Biden that she is becoming an Independent.")

Did you know that Karine Jean-Pierre was a Black LGBTQ Woman

Yes of course. After seeing her unbearably hideous mug on countless Twitter and fake news articles, the accompanying text undoubtedly contained that information. And of course I'm sure that's literally the only reason she of all people was chosen instead of literally anyone else on the planet.

I need to acid wash my eyes again after clicking on your link unfortunately.

If Karine Jean-Pierre is unbearably hideous, then Lori Lightfoot is the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Lori Lightfoot is the Creature from the Black Lagoon a Fungi from Yuggoth.

Yes.

hideous mug

??? She's fairly attractive as political bit-players go. Not Hollywood-actress attractive, but come on now. (Certainly she has the kind of pleasant, genuine-seeming smile that Kamala Harris could only dream of.)

Mostly leaving aside the race factor, two possibilities:

A) she has high chipmunky cheeks, and I suspect that's an unfortunately polarizing feature that she can't do much about. Some people find it cute, some find it off-putting, maybe fewer opinions in the middle.

B) she seems to have decided against adapting her makeup to the podium lighting, and it gives her an almost plastic look. Every picture on Google Photos she's just so shiny. I wouldn't say hideous but a somewhat 'uncanny' feeling.

I agree her smile does her many favors, and in the photos where she doesn't have that shiny-plastic look, yeah, above the political average and the prettiest of the last several press secretaries. Surprises me a bit to skip over the redhead.

You have an exceedingly warped perception of attractive.

I mean, this women was never going to become a sex symbol. Absolutely nobody wants to see her selling fitness routines. But she's not buttugly and unpleasant the way so many female politicians- especially democrats- commit themselves to firmly.

She is not the most ugly person I have ever seen. You don't need to think she's a beauty queen, but she could look worse.

At this point I just have to assume that some people's brain really just deducts 5 points or more for being black, judging by the periodic reactions here to some women's photos.

Can't wait to have another "is Hillary Swank Zendaya hot?" discussion when Dune 3 drops!

Friday Fun Thread project: Assemble a few dozen photos of celebrities (or just stock-photo models) of various races, solicit ratings from users of various races, and determine correlation.

As a card-carrying nigger (of Caribbean descent), after perusing Google Images, I will rate both Harris and Jean-Pierre at 3 out of 5. Jean-Pierre may get an extra −0.5 for having a fat face, but it's a close call. She definitely gets an extra −0.5 when she uses a weird asymmetrical straightened hairstyle.

More proof why the 5-point or 10-point scale fails. There is 1 or 0.

I thought the scale was inversely related to how many drinks it took to flip the 0 to a 1.

I can think of 8s who would be 0s for me and 3s who would be 1s. There's a correlation but not 1-1

It's 1 or 0, and you must live with the criticism/mockery from your bros about your picks.

Also angles of photos. I was looking at two different photos taken on the same set and at the same interview, and in one she looks bad and in another she looks okay.

I think her current hairstyle isn't doing her any favours and that particular outfit is awful, but she's older and she does have a plump face so it's going to be tough to look good all the time.

Honestly I think the exact opposite. Even Joe Biden [can't keep his eyes open at the sight of KJP]. If I had to choose, I'd rather have portraits of Kamala everywhere than KJP. Of course KJP never had the opportunity to smile while getting railed on every single briefing because Joe Biden was doing his usual.

I guess attractive is a multifaceted term, but on a scale of "looks good fitting into a room full of suits and influential people (as a peer not as an Epstein guest)" I would put Kamala as a definite winner. I'm not a fan of her policies or fake black accent, but Kamala looks completely acceptable. KJP though... eww.

This sounds like a point against the aesthetics of suits and influential people.

3/10. Hideous is strong but unattractive is appropriate.

Undoubtedly, there is a black lesbian who can speak clearly and who is connected enough to democratic politics to be on a list for the role. KJP may have been dumb enough not to realize she was signing onto a sinking ship; AFAIK, Biden's senility was an open secret. Ultimately, though, this is one of a number of bafflingly terrible decisions with no logic behind them whatsoever made by the Biden admin.

Who? A quick search indicates she was Biden's White House Press Secretary, and is definitely black, though not African American -- she was born in Martinique. The New Yorker seems to think she's relevant (she never was), but amusingly even Politico isn't impressed. Their headline and subhead is

Karine Jean-Pierre's book tour is non-stop cringe. Her former colleagues can't look away.
Democrats, who'd like to close the book on Biden, are horrified at the former press secretary's struggles to explain herself.

I'm proposing hydro's law: the bigger a deal an individual woke black makes of being black, the more likely to be Caribbean.

same with britsish blacks, no? Its not nigerians claiming the mantle of BLM.

I have one friend from the DR, and he always strenuously objects to being called black (or anything on the treadmill). He's Dominican.

So the meme is true...

Chotiner is the New Yorker’s resident assassin. Merely being asked to sit down with him is a sign that someone wants to see you politically gutted.

I’m not sure the New Yorker really does view her as especially relevant, so much as they just need to toss a goat into the T-rex paddock every so often.

Chotiner is the New Yorker’s resident assassin. Merely being asked to sit down with him is a sign that someone wants to see you politically gutted.

Which honestly was predictable. Right now, for Democrats associated with the Biden administration, the smart move is laying low, not launching books. The party is still looking for excuses for its 2024 performance and its moribundity going into the 2026 midterm season. Peeking your head out, like Harris and now Jean-Pierre did, is just asking to be thrown under the bus.

Chotiner is the New Yorker’s resident assassin.

Is he? I'm not familiar with the New Yorker. I didn't find his questions all that hard; he mostly came across as someone trying to make sense of the word salad (maybe that counts as particularly hard in political interviews).

I didn't find his questions all that hard; he mostly came across as someone trying to make sense of the word salad (maybe that counts as particularly hard in political interviews).

Some people just can’t stop themselves from stepping on rakes. It seems like that’s an awful lot of people in politics. Presumably because they:

A: Like to hear themselves talk

B: Only respond to questions by deploying their talking points

C: Default to word salad when the first-level defense of talking points is penetrated

Chotiner is a massive liberal but he’s had some interviews where the interviewee just Yes Chad’d their way through, and they always come out looking better than the typical politician.

This is a good example with neo-con Eliot Cohen. https://archive.is/R8IZX

Another Chotiner classic, of him interviewing the President of the SFUSD school board:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250215094922/https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-san-francisco-renamed-its-schools

Chotiner: So none of the errors that I read to you about previous entries made you worried that maybe this was done in a slightly haphazard way?

Gabriela Lopez: No, because I’ve already shared with you that the people who have contributed to this process are also part of a community that is taking it as seriously as we would want them to. And they’re contributing through diverse perspectives and experiences that are often not included, and that we need to acknowledge.

Chotiner: I’m not quite sure what that means when we are talking about things that did or didn’t happen.

Lopez: I think what you’re pointing to and what I keep hearing is you’re trying to undermine the work that has been done through this process. And I’m moving away from the idea that it was haphazard.

This is about as hostile as he ever gets. His specialty is asking a question, getting nonsense back, asking what do you mean, and leading the interviewee to a total trainwreck.

I think theres a self selection mechanism going on where people who are aware that they have rope to hang around themselves know better than to be Chotinered. Those who are too stupid to realize they are entrappable don't show up. It is entirely possible that these people being interviewed aren't aware of their reputational flameout during the interview with ostensibly friendly New Yorker and then are blindsided that people think they're coming across as retarded once the piece is published. No how can you think I'm wrong can't you see the strength of my conviction?

(Jean-Pierre, who served for more than two years in her role, which consisted of defending the Administration to the press and explaining its policies, also blames the Democratic Party because it “couldn’t articulate the achievements of the Biden/Harris administration well enough.”)

A stinging line. I assume that's about as harsh as the New Yorker gets when they have to criticize a Dem, but even so, it has some bite.

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