site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   14976 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 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.

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

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