site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15590 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 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.

Let's review the structural implications Covid Vaccine now that the memory hole continues to gape its cthululic mouth.

  1. The Covid vaccine trials were mysteriously delayed until after the 2020 election. I do not think I need to expound on why that influenced the outcome of that election.

  2. The Covid vaccines that were authorized during the period of mandates, passports, and general coercion, all relied on methods of genetic antigen production. Even though it was possible to have adjuvanted-protein preparations, the agencies only allowed the genetic methods of antigen presentation to be approved. When adjuvanted proteins were released, it was way past the mark of people losing their jobs, access to education, or access to healthcare (transplants). The curious side of me thinks this was an intentional, structural attack of nearly every organization in the country. Think Foucault "science is a grid of understanding that falls on your life" type of epistemic understanding. The idea that western nations forced a choice between unvaccinated or genetic methods makes me think this was intentional. A Joe Rogan podcast (sorry) with an epidemiologist who flew her children to Indonesia to get the adjuvanted-protein vaccination comes to mind of the deliberate choice to limit the market structurally (and painfully for some).

  3. The Covid vaccines ended up being a "flu shot" type vaccine. Never before 2020 would you hear this type of fervor about flu shot compliance. So we have a new genetic method of antigen production paired with people "playing dumb" about the nature of the injection. First, the narrative was that the vaccine can stop covid, and then when it didn't, "experts" did not act surprised and were fine with presenting "flu shot" type outcomes (less severe disease). In an interview with current director of the NIH Jay Bhattacharya, a PhD, he coyly smiles and denies getting last seasons flu shot due to "being too busy," when I think it was a wink and a nod about how valuable flu shots and covid shots are, as well as bit of defiance in the face of the structural vaccine moment.

  4. The covid vaccine (genetic versions) were marketed as safter than getting Covid. This statistic was the last pravda that was settled on, it has not changed since the vaccine moment simmered down. I generally agree with the statistic, that the covid vaccine safety profile was comparable to an infectious, deadly disease.

  5. In my conversations with "in-the-know" doctors, the way to wink and nod about the Covid Vaccine attack is to discuss "absolute" versus "relative" outcomes. If you mention this to me, I assume you found the structural Covid Vaccine changes to be interesting, whether malevolent or not.

  6. I think the above structural changes were malevolent. We went through one of the most sophisticated plans to epistemically drive Western countries to a desired outcome. When you look at who is most familiar with structural theories of society, you general find Foucauldian style academics to have the understanding of how making a "genetic vaccine moment" in America could help your friends and hurt your enemies. I think you could assign partisan blame if you were so inclined.

  7. We have seen deliberate attempts to smudge together all vaccines into one monolithic product and doctrine.

You can tell how I felt about the vaccine moment. That being said, I receive TDAP boosters and the yearly flu shot (it is mandated, I would refuse out of defiance but I am not too concerned about getting a protein flu shot). I am not sure how many people still know, or care, about the above events. But I think there are relatively powerful people out there who have a similar understanding to the chessboard maneuvering of the American Genetic Vaccine Moment. When someone laughs, or mocks, any type of vaccine hesitancy, I do not necessarily object to their facts, but it reminds me about the grim smile of the doctrinaires who created one of the most epic, covert, structural attacks on Western people in their own countries, with plausible deniability and a righteous indignation about any resistance to it.

When I see smug laughing and smiling about anti-scientific sentiment (which can now be considered structural counter-attack), I remind myself of what is at the bottom of that smile. Proof of the existence of enemy doctrines. Proof that people will turn on you quickly. Proof that structural understanding of self-lessness and altruism, is a Western culture no-mans-land.

I hope you note there is not numerous debate of facts in the above writings. The only fact I think you can debate is whether the Vaccine Moment was a malevolent, planned, opportunistic structural attack on a segment of Western Society.

As a newer account with the fervor to post and fill my profile page, I initially was tempted to excise this post point-by-point, explaining where my thoughts differed. However, after starting to write, I realized I'm in the same camp as TitaniumButterfly - there is a notable lack of specificity here. I am not sure what ideological camp or viewpoint you're claiming to advocate, given your language avoids the usual COVID buzzwords. It seems you expect us to know what you're referring to by "enemy doctrines" and "grim smiles of doctrinaires," but they're blowing right over my head. I can sort of see what tea leaves you're gesturing to. I just don't know what you mean exactly. A good place to start might be explaining your conclusion so I can reason backward.

...the Vaccine Moment was a malevolent, planned, opportunistic structural attack on a segment of Western Society.

  1. Malevolent, how? Malevolent because of the direct medical consequences of using "genetic technology"? Malevolent because it showed that the technocratic establishment was able to shape public will given the right cause? I can tell you generally disapprove of the way that scientific authority was wielded during the pandemic, but what do you believe the negative consequences of the COVID reaction are, exactly?
  2. Planned, how? Information about COVID was very scare and contradictory at the beginning. The global population was incredibly scared and confused and looking toward authorities for some guidance. Those authorities did not want to find themselves without that guidance. They did not want to appear incompetent. I find it much more likely that the response to the pandemic was one that was necessarily imperfect due to the political and biological realities of pandemic life and the incredible demand for solutions. If it was planned, what aspects do you believe were coordinated and for what goal?
  3. Structural, how? The structures that led to the rollout of the vaccine were largely in place prior to the pandemic and I don't believe they've been dramatically changed since. Perhaps you mean structural in terms of our social relationship to science. What do you mean by structure - even in the Foucaltian sense?
  4. Which segment of Western society? Why that segment in particular, why Western society, rather than the world? The entire world experienced the pandemic, most countries had inconsistent and fraught COVID responses, and large portions of the world received exported American vaccines.

I'm not being intentionally glib here, I just haven't participated in COVID discourse in quite a long time so I'm failing at the word association game you're trying to play.

I think he’s referring to two things:

  1. The significant evidence that COVID was genetically engineered, and the sketchy circumstances of its origin. Jeffery Sachs has spoken about this at length, and about how members of the scientific community that were reporting on the likely man-made origin of the plague were shouted down and suppressed.
  2. Various governments using COVID as an excuse to try and roll out all sorts of different authoritarian measures (lockdowns, quarantine orders, travel restrictions, mask mandates, vaccine passes, crackdowns on “misinformation”).

Those are definitely externalities that I considered, but even when taken together I don't think they encompass precisely what OP is objecting to. Nor do they illustrate the reasons behind OP's apparent discontent.

I can sort of see what tea leaves you're gesturing to. I just don't know what you mean exactly.

This is a tactic that allows mottes and baileys and is why we talk about speaking plainly. If he were to post that the vaccine is dangerous, it could be rebutted.

The main thing that distinguishes that from a troll post is that there is a lot of Covid skepticism here that he could be trying to appeal to, but the skepticism here is about lockdowns and the political handling of Covid, which is only his point 1. Everyone here (minus the lizardman constant) thinks vaccines work.

Everyone here (minus the lizardman constant) thinks vaccines work.

I'd note that this kind of demonstrates one of OP's points — the lumping together of "all vaccines into one monolithic product and doctrine." That you either believe "vaccines work" — all things that we choose to label a "vaccine," regardless of how novel the technology — as a whole, or you want to bring back polio. That anyone who so much as doubts the mRNA shot must be a scientifically-illiterate moron who thinks Edward Jenner was a fraud and the MMR shot causes autism.

Plus, it's also consensus-building.

In theory, you could believe that one vaccine works independently of the others. In practice, not so much.

Broadening the scope, it's uncontroversial to believe that some medications work, some medications don't really work, and some work but have unacceptable side-effects. I don't see why vaccines have to be any different.

In practice, not so much.

"Some vaccines work and are worth the harm they cause and other vaccines do not work or are not worth the harm they cause" would be a statement 95% of the people regularly labeled vaccine deniers or anti-vaxxers would agree with

even a slight amount of honest engagement with them would reveal that

How about believing that one "vaccine" doesn't work, independently of all the others that do?

I get it, you want to smear anyone who has concerns about the mRNA "vaccine" as a brain-dead "science-denier" who wants to bring back measles and mumps, but quite a few people — including most people I know IRL — accept that all the many real vaccines do work… but not the "clot shot" bioweapon.

In practice, I'm fairly sure a lot more people believe in polio vaccine than flu vaccine.

Everyone here (minus the lizardman constant) thinks vaccines work.

I find OP somewhat frustrating for those motte/bailey/tea leaf reasons, but the CDC had to change their definition of vaccine because the COVID vaccine turned out so mediocre.

I think this was more due to the arrogance of the average public health agent combined with a heaping serving of sunk cost fallacy than some planned maliciousness, but it wasn't exactly encouraging as a development.

Everyone here (minus the lizardman constant) thinks vaccines work.

There probably are few here who would claim that no vaccines work, but if referring to the COVID vaccine specifically, that's a lot of lizardmen.

That being said, I receive TDAP boosters and the yearly flu shot (it is mandated, I would refuse out of defiance but I am not too concerned about getting a protein flu shot).

What if it were an mRNA flu shot or non-mRNA sars-cov2 shot? What are your specific concerns about mRNA vaccines?

I’m going to respond to part of your argument , that the use of genetic based vaccines is something that was foisted upon society as a likely plot rather than scientific and economic reality.

For context, I am a scientist who works for a major pharmaceutical company that’s has significant market share of a certain global (protein-based) vaccine. Specifically I am development scientist working on mRNA based vaccine products with a doctoral thesis involving virology and RNA modifications.

For a given novel virus like SARS-CoV-2 the following steps are needed to produce an effective, safe, and most importantly manufacturable protein based vaccine.

  1. Figure out how to effectively grow the virus in question

This means identifying cells ( or another system like eggs are used for flu, but that has issues beyond the scope of this response) that are scalable, reliable, well characterized ( can’t very well make a virus stock in a cell line rife with latent embedded viral genomes!). This is FAR from an easy task and if the identified cell needs proper characterization it can take MONTHS

  1. Develop a feasible process to purify your virus

Despite cartoon graphics showing a virus entering a cell and Ice-9 ‘ng the place into a thousand more copies of its self, it’s more like someone breaks into the iPhone factory and starts turning out Samsung galaxys. Sure now you have a bunch of galaxy’s (virus) but you also have the entire freaking factory still there. So you need to develop a safe, manufacturable, robust process to somehow filter out all of the cellular crap , inactivate the virus in a way and doesn’t render it non-antigenic, and then also enrich for the actual, you know, antigen. This process will realistically take a month plus for something that would even come close to being acceptable in a first world country

  1. Evaluate your vaccine clinically

See: clinical trials

With a genetic platform like an mRNA vaccine all you need to do is

  1. Identify the antigen sequence

Thanks Illumina

  1. Make mRNA at scale

I’m not saying that this is like making twinkies, buts it’s more chemistry than biology and therefore is MUCH MUCH MUCH simpler. If we had to make a new vaccine tomorrow for a novel sequence. We could be up and running in literally a day.

  1. Package mRNA into a cellular delivery vessel

Again, using LNPs ( Pfizer / Moderna) this is significantly simpler than the antigen purification process above. Think a few days / weeks of development.

  1. Clinical trials

Same sluggish process as above

So to summarize. What takes, in a time of global crisis, maybe a month or two for a genetic vaccine platform like mRNA would easily be 3-4x trying a protein antigen based approach.

So just from that principle it was always more likely for any situation like COVID to result in lots of genetic vaccine candidates with more favorable timelines to protein based ones since the technology had been ready and raring to go.

FYI you can use

1- dashed instead of dotted numbers

to keep the site from renumbering

2- all of your heading lines

to .1

The Covid vaccine trials were mysteriously delayed until after the 2020 election. I do not think I need to expound on why that influenced the outcome of that election.

Pfizer started Phase 1/2 trials for the vaccine that would become Cominarty in May 2020 and Phase 2/3 trials in July. Just for a very simple fact you get wrong.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/19/1010646/campaign-stop-covid-19-vaccine-trump-election-day/

There's an article on why it happened and was good actually, that several thousand more Americans died.

No, that part is very real. (Unlike the vague nonsense that makes up most of the rest of his post.) If Pfizer had followed their planned trial endpoints they would have announced results days before the 2020 election. Instead they chose to leave samples frozen without testing them until afterwards. I wrote about this years ago, it was clear what had happened just from public information, but earlier this year there was also some new evidence via the House Judiciary Committee:

GSK further informed the Committee that Dr. Dormitzer had told GSK employees that "in late 2020, the three most senior people in Pfizer R&D were involved in a decision to deliberately slow down clinical testing so that it would not be complete prior to the results of the presidential election that year."

As I mention in my old linked post, I wonder how much their actions ended up affecting trust in the vaccine, and by extension how many lives it cost.

I don't think it would have reversed the political association, despite people like Kamala Harris and Andrew Cuomo expressing doubts about a vaccine approved during the Trump administrations. Ultimately I think left-wing/mainstream media outlets would probably have still been pro-vaccine, and left-wingers would have still generally listened to them. But I think it might have made a significant impact on right-wingers if Trump had actively campaigned on his administration making it possible for the vaccine to be developed and approved so quickly. Which implies that a world where the trials concluded pre-election would have significantly higher acceptance of the vaccine overall.

When were the results of those trials announced, relative to the election?

Phase 1/2 preliminary results were published in October and Phase 3 results November 20th. Pfizer applied for an EUA the same day the results were announced, which the FDA did not grant until December 11th.

I don't really see much to engage with here; your assertions are packaged in such a way as to discourage careful consideration and it would probably be helpful for you to clearly articulate a thesis.

For example,

We have seen deliberate attempts to smudge together all vaccines into one monolithic product and doctrine.

Just don't know what to make of this. That sounds kinda like something I could believe, but it's vague enough that I can't exactly go find out more or argue, can I? Except to say that I'm not sure I have seen that, no. Perhaps someone will demonstrate it at some point, in which case I'll likely adopt the position and also be upset about the matter.

Also you seem to be a single-issue poster which indicates crankery in general. Leaves me less interested in investing in understanding whatever it is you're trying to say.

Except to say that I'm not sure I have seen that, no. Perhaps someone will demonstrate it at some point, in which case I'll likely adopt the position and also be upset about the matter.

Jiro did it upthread right here:

Everyone here (minus the lizardman constant) thinks vaccines work

See, either you think "vaccines" work — *all vaccines, from the polio vaccine to mRNA Covid shots — or you think vaccines don't work, not a one of them.

Have you not seen critics of the COVID vaccine (any COVID vaccine) consistently described as anti-vaxers? The only time I recall a serious offline conversation about this, an old friend took my criticism of the social dynamic as criticism of vaccines in general despite my explicit words to the contrary.

99% of the time, critics of the vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Weird rationalists are weird.

nah, it's probably around 5% of the time people criticizing the covid shot are against all vaccines

although, I appreciate you responding downthread demonstrating people do indeed smudge together all vaccines as a tactic to label anyone criticizing a single one as an "anti-vaxxer," i.e., against all vaccines

Probably a lot of the people posting here who criticize it aren't against vaccines (although even then I'm not so sure). This place is, compared to the general population, weird.

Lots of people outside of the motte get tetanus shots even when they say the covid shot and the flu shot are harmful or garbage. Attempting to claim "95%" of these people are anti-vaxxers is a bad argument.

That's just normies being bad at decoupling.

no, this isn't just random normies

random normies repeat it because they've watched media, doctors, public health officials, government officials, scientists, etc., engaging in dishonest rhetoric to discredit people they disagree with by lying about their position

and then using it because it's effective

Appreciate you reading my thoughts. I've never seen these assertions packaged together, and put it down for you to share. This is a single issue I've been close to since its inception, and that's what gives me a good stance for memory on things other people may have forgotten. "Crankery" is what strengthens my synthesis.

I at least wanted to leave contentious "fact-checkable" assertions and debates behind, which leaves me to make the sweeping global claims I have outlined. The covid vaccine is part of a structural, malevolent Foucauldian play against some people living in the West.

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