site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24815 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, is everyone ready for the Republican Jussie Smollet?

A NJ Republican psychopath appears to have hired some kind of fetish artist to scar her body as part of an elaborate hoax to fake an attack by rabid Democrats

We're using the NYPost here, I figure it is more reliable where Republican hoaxes are concerned.

A former New Jersey GOP aide allegedly paid a fetish artist to carve dozens of cuts in her skin and had a pal scrawl “Trump Whore” on her stomach in order to claim that she was the victim of a politically motivated violent attack, according to shocking new court documents. Natalie Greene, 26, was arrested Wednesday and charged with concocting the violent bogus ambush at Egg Harbor Township Nature Reserve on July 23, the US Attorney’s Office for New Jersey announced. Prosecutors said the accused fraudster claimed three gun-wielding men approached her and a friend on the trail around 10:30 p.m. before threatening to shoot her and hitting her in the head. The suspect said the fictitious attackers then hogtied her with black zip ties, held her down while slashing her face and body, and etched anti-Trump slurs onto her stomach and back because she worked for a Republican, the complaint said.

I was riding my bike past that nature preserve around then. I wasn't attacked by any Antifa. Go figure.

Two days before the alleged phony assault, Greene drove to Pennsylvania and paid a body modification artist she found on Instagram $500 to deliberately carve gruesome wounds into her face, neck, chest, back, and shoulders with a scalpel, the court documents alleged.

On the day of the alleged staged attack, Greene’s accomplice frantically called police, claiming she had been singled out by name and violently assaulted, according to the complaint. Officers found the accused con artist in a wooded area just off the trail, hands and feet bound together, her shirt pulled over her head, and the words “TRUMP WHORE” and “Van Drew is a racist” scribbled in black marker on her horrifically scarred body, as she screamed that one of her attackers had a gun. Horrific photos in the complaint show Greene with deep, grisly cuts on her body and face.

Prosecutors said Greene was taken to a hospital, where she and her accomplice gave police conflicting accounts of what happened and provided faulty descriptions of the phantom assailants. Black zip ties and duct tape were also found in Greene’s Maserati the night of the disturbing alleged scheme, and federal officials said her unidentified sidekick searched “zip ties near me” on their phone two days earlier and went to a Ventnor Dollar General to pick them up.

Lol Rutgers Law.

The young Ms. Greene's motive in this is pretty unclear. She was at one time a staffer for a NJ representative, presumably from Cape May county. But so far no one is reporting really extreme kind of politics. Cape May County Republican is practically the definition of "boat owner" Republican. It's a red tribe area in the way that any wealthy white area with lots of retiree fisherman and a few small farms would be. But it's not militia country or something. It's not somewhere full of conspiracy nuts, at least it wasn't.

Have we just cracked this much? I'm a little unclear on what kind of body modification is in the offing here exactly, is that stuff semi-permanent? That's HORRIFYING. Is it that worth it to hurt the other team? False flags all seem to be so poorly executed that they don't achieve anything for the "team" attempting them.

I'm unclear on whether this story fell apart so quickly that it was never reported as actually occurring, or if the story was suppressed because of the "wrong team" associations. I never heard anything about it until I heard she was being charged for false reporting. The cover-up appears to have been so thin and weak that it fell apart almost immediately. I haven't even seen much reporting on the Jussie Smollett of it all. Is this kind of insantity so routine it doesn't even break through to the front pages anymore?

I hadnt even heard of this until you posted it, which makes it very dissimilar to Smollett in that his obvious hoax was reported as a real hate crime attack for at least a day, and in the end he was protected by his locally powerful friends. More evidence that left of center media is more reckless than right of center media.

False flags all seem to be so poorly executed that they don't achieve anything for the "team" attempting them.

{insert famous airplane picture}

Obviously, well executed false flags are not recognized as so.

What is significant that people arranging these stunts have no idea how IRL violence looks like, that their knowledge comes exclusively from movies (or fetish porn).

And they are supremely confident in their knowledge and do not bother with research (it is easy now watch real footage of people beaten/killed on the streets from comfort of your living room).

Obviously, well executed false flags are not recognized as so.

Not necessarily. Consider that we don't tend to see the intermediate category of false flags that fall apart after long investigations.

For murders, we see murderers that are caught immediately with terrible alibis, we see murderers that are intelligent and nearly perfect but fall apart under long investigation, and we see murderers that have somewhat decent alibis but fall apart under moderate investigation. We can speculate that there exist some very intelligent or lucky murderers whose alibis never fall apart under investigation.

With false flags, we only seem to see those that are caught immediately. There's no intermediate categories of false flaggers whose alibis fall apart after moderate investigation. There's a missing part of the curve.

With false flags, we only seem to see those that are caught immediately. There's no intermediate categories of false flaggers whose alibis fall apart after moderate investigation. There's a missing part of the curve.

Jussie Smollett is a medium category, as was the NASCAR noose hoax. I mean, I knew Smollett was a hoax from day 1, as did basically everyone in CPD, but the media was fooled for a long period of time. The FBI seemingly was fooled by the NASCAR hoax as well and launched a full investigation.

Or nobody does the long investigations, or releases their results.

Probably combination of persecution complex plus moderate-advanced BDSM inclination went out of control.

Google Trends puts her at less than 1% of peak Jussie Smollett. Anything that's the 'Something of Something' isn't really the anything of anything.

While I did think of you guys in a Running Dad way (but in one of the many variations where he's running toward instead of away from something) when I first saw this story on the interwebs and had a comment in the works, it's perhaps in somewhat of a orthogonal direction than what @RoyGBivensAction suggested.

If the allegations are true with regard to her committing a Smollett, and that this is not some sort of weird hoax or whatever: this could serve as a cautionary tale for the online right when it comes to trusting thots, given how hard the online right has been simping for figures like Sydney Sweeney lately and how there's an entire ecosystem of supposedly rightwing e-girls whose characters, surprise surprise, appear not to be too different from e-girls as a whole.

Two days before the alleged phony assault, Greene drove to Pennsylvania and paid a body modification artist she found on Instagram $500 to deliberately carve gruesome wounds into her face, neck, chest, back, and shoulders with a scalpel, the court documents alleged.

Wow, can't believe she crossed state lines. There's also some joke in there about how chicks will leave you on read while they do things like drive across states to pay someone $500 to carve up their skin, get tied up and beat up.

Local residents in Greene’s hometown were horrified when they heard about the story.

At the end of the day we’re talking about a 25-year-old girl, a beautiful girl, whose politics aren’t supposed to reach that level of extreme,” Fiona Tierney, 49, told The Post.

“Now she’s got to spend the rest of her life with these scars to remind her of what she did. What, she’s going to the beach wearing a bathing suit with all that on display? She’d never live this down. What kind of a future is that?”

It's always a shame when a more than "WOULD"able chick chooses to scribble upon her skin. I also found amusing the implicit admission that doing things like prancing around in a bikini is a central aspect of a young woman's lifestyle. And indeed, "25-year-old girl": #Fightfor35.

“While Natalie is no longer associated with the congressman’s government office, our thoughts and prayers are with her and hope she’s getting the care she needs,” Van Drew’s office told the outlet.

Damn, that's cold—vicente_del_bosque.gif. I can't help but imagine Van Drew as the Wojak with the seething mask in front, but grinning behind it. Most people have never heard of you, but now you've suddenly made national news because a young former female employee got your name scrawled on her body.

Wow, can't believe she crossed state lines.

I'm guessing she was trying to ensure that the fetish artist didn't hear about the case, given the high likelihood of him turning her in (I mean, come on, the political leanings of fetish artists are well-known even aside from the "most people want justice done" thing). "Don't expect the enemy to cooperate in the creation of your dream engagement" is still such an obvious flaw in the plan that it's not how I'd have done it (not to mention the time delay), but then again I'm not crazy enough to do something like that to myself.

I also found amusing the implicit admission that doing things like prancing around in a bikini is a central aspect of a young woman's lifestyle.

You know, maybe this off topic and deserves it's own thread, but at some point we're going to come around to an America where the red tribe is more promiscuous and sex-positive than the blue.

When that inflection point comes, everyone from Gen X and older is gonna have to totally rewire their brain.

Although the stereotype of conservatives/Republicans being more attractive than progressives/Democrats has been around for a while (with some research supporting this), the online right in recent years has been increasingly vocal when it comes to tolerating and even celebrating the thottery of attractive conservative (or not-so-conservative women) women—simping for figures like Sydney Sweeney and Taylor Swift, signal boosting sorority girl recruitment videos (where they do group dances in skimpy outfits: "come teehee around and be sex objects with us instead of one of those other sororities!") in an effort to somehow pwn the libs.

So much for conservative, traditional values. It might just be a sign of times though, if the online right has given up on thot-patrolling and has instead embraced thottery like a form of Stockholm Syndrome—Stockholm Sydrome, if you will.

Well, I think given how negative about sex the modern left has become, it was inevitable that some reaction would happen.

Moreover, I think the football-and-beer contingent never quite as prudish as the conservative average.

And indeed, "25-year-old girl": #Fightfor35.

Girl just refers to an unmarried woman in this context. Similar to 'senorita'.

#Fightfor35.

Nah, 'girl' is any woman 15 years younger than the speaker. The same way my 70-year-old relatives talk about a 50-year-old as 'such a nice young man'.

I don’t know. This whole world is topsy turvy when I’ve got 20 year old girls calling me “dude” and guys much shorter and younger than me calling me “buddy.” You’d still get a glass cracked on your head if you say that to another man where I’m from. It’s like calling someone “friend” or “homeboy” making quotation marks with both your hands at someone right before you spit at and smack them across the face. That term was always considered insulting in any context. You never call someone that.

‘Dude’? or ‘buddy’?

Reminds me of a Pratchett quote:

He called people ‘friend’. Someone who does that isn’t friendly.

“Dude” is appropriate. Just in proper context and not when a woman calls you it. “Buddy” was always considered an insult where I’m from.

Dude is one of those deliberate friendzone words coming from a young woman. Buddy, mate etc.

"Nice young man," not a "nice boy". So there's not the same parallel. Also, although just another anecdote, my ~70-year-old relatives would never refer to 50-year-olds as "young."

That being said, when I'm 50 someday I'd be happy to take the free W of being referred to as a "nice young man" or a "nice boy," and possibly ration the memory like a camel.

"Out with the boys"?

I think a better example would be “kid.” I was “the kid” at work until I was 30, and it only stopped because we hired a guy in his early 20s.

You may find this video by David Mitchell amusing.

Did anyone actually believe this though? The Smollet case was notable for being so obviously wrong and there being many people who fell for it.

A lot of them are either fooled easily or have never met pathological liars before. The tells were pretty obvious to me. He was mostly caught out on his inconsistencies.

A lot of people think lying is simply a matter of whether or not people volunteer up information or confess their involvement in certain activities. That’s not how they get you most of the time. A long time ago I read an encyclopedia on the tactics of trial lawyers that was written around the first half of the 20th century.

This is how they catch you. The first thing they do is they’ll have you tell your story from beginning to end. Then after some lines of questioning they’ll have you tell the exact same story again, but to start from the middle. Then after they repeat multiple lines of questioning they’ll have you tell the same exact story again, from the end, all the way back to the beginning. And often times you’ll get tripped up, you’ll be caught thinking your way through the web of fabricated details you made up, it becomes very disorienting and incoherent.

Naturally this doesn’t take 100% of the time. Some people just remember things in weird ways. Some people’s natural conversational pattern causes them to misspeak a lot. Some people are naturally more nervous and anxious than others. But it’s effective enough where they rely on this method of interrogation to this very day.

And it’s the same thing where they coax you into conclusions you wouldn’t agree with by describing an activity but avoiding the word that describes it directly. So for instance, if you were accused of “stealing” money, they’ll ask, “Did you ever take property that didn’t belong to you?” Because they know “steal” is an emotional trigger word that raises the alarm bells in the mind of the accused, such that they dodge, resist and avoid it. Same with “kill,” “rape,” “shoot,” “rob,” etc. But if you’re a trained target or are acutely aware of the precise frame of the question, you know what it is they’re asking. If you look at the Nuremberg Trial’s for instance, Herman Goring ran circles around the prosecuting attorney such that they had to appoint a more specialized and seasoned attorney in his case to be able to handle him; because he knew what the word game was that they were playing with him.

because he knew what the word game was that they were playing with him.

To dial in on this bit, one thing I learned working in a forensic setting is that bad people and those who don't really care don't really understand what they did was wrong. That's obvious right? But they know that certain words causes problems, you don't use the words and describe the behaviors....no problem right?

This sounds a bit obvious and definitely applies more to low intellect/education types, but everyone can probably identify someone in their life who is say, against "beating their wife" but has no problem with "showing her who is the boss."

Once you start looking for this...omg it's everywhere.

Sounds like you arrived independently at the concept of Russell Conjugations.

He beats his wife. You show your wife who’s boss. I provide my wife with the type of leadership women most respect.

False flags all seem to be so poorly executed that they don't achieve anything for the "team" attempting them.

False-flags are like hairpieces, you don’t notice the good ones. This lady and Smolett aren’t political operatives or intelligence agents, they are crazy narcissicists looking for attention. It’s like Münchausen’s syndrome.

The answer is the same as it is for hairpieces: You can notice that there are some really bad hairpieces, and some somewhat good ones that you eventually notice after a while. This lets you extrapolate to how many hairpieces are so good that you can't notice them.

Algorithms bubble check: was this on any major commentators radar as a real thing? I didn't see anything about it it until the hoax angle came up.

Everything old is new again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax

On October 22, 2008, Todd claimed that she was robbed at knifepoint by a "six-foot-four African American of medium build, dressed in dark clothes wearing shiny shoes" at a Citizens Bank ATM in the Bloomfield neighborhood of Pittsburgh. She also alleged that after the robber saw a McCain bumper sticker on Todd's car, he assaulted her, cut a reversed letter B into her cheek, and told her "you are going to be a Barack supporter."

I'm quite enjoying the idea that 3 tie-dye wearing Deadhead stereotypes zip-tied a random woman, carved wounds into her, and wrote "Trump Whore" on her. That is even less believable than the Smollett situation, which is saying something.

Although, is this finally the counterexample to PJ O'Rourke's claim that no one wants to be tied up and ravished by someone dressed as a liberal? Please get @Sloot in here asap to explain how this was a tactic to get sexual attention.

Wouldn't shock me if this was some sort of Fetlife stuff that she was prettymuch explicitly into that somehow snowballed into media attention. Atleast I don't think somebody completely off the street is gonna go to a body modification 'artist' in their rolodex.

The 911 call isn't something you see a lot of in fetish scenes.

Do men actually ever do things like this? Smollett is kind of close, but he reads a bit differently to me: he wasn't seriously injured, and he seemed to more be trying to get negotiating leverage for his career than sacrificing himself for the greater benefit of the Cause.

I think the sorts of men with bad enough mental problems to be willing to hurt themselves for a political cause are probably also the sorts of men who believe no one cares about their suffering. They dont anticipate the same sort of sympathy women expect, so their self-destructive tendencies are either channeled outward as spree killings/assassinations and/or channeled inward as flamboyant suicides (think self-immolation protests).

This would be consistent with the gender suicide paradox, where women are two to four times more likely to attempt suicide, but men are three to four times more likely die from suicide:

One reason for this may be that men who try to commit suicide may have a stronger and more genuine will to end their own lives, while women engage in more "suicidal gestures"

I imagine "for sympathy and attention" was the next phrase that went unsaid. Calling women's suicide attempts "suicidal gestures" is unintentionally hilarious to me.

suicidal gestures"

It's the term for it.

Two additional factors -

  1. Cluster-b personality disorders with more female prevalence (chiefly borderline) involve suicidal thought content and gestures.
  2. Men tend to have more access to and use more lethal means, like guns. Men also have less aesthetic concerns so they don't mind throwing themselves off a building or into a train as much where women like to preserve themselves and will overdose more, which can be hard to get right.

Jussie was also, you know, gay.

Perhaps the male equivalent is a mass shooting.

It's not somewhere full of conspiracy nuts, at least it wasn't.

Eh, if you believe in the Jersey Devil, conspiracies come along with it.

My guess is this woman was probably "known" by the local police who smelled a rat right away. From the story it appears the scars are real and permanent, so she's just moved from the crazy/hot section of the card to just plain crazy. A shame in some ways, though a blessing to those foolish enough not to heed the wisdom about sticking it in the crazy.

Eh, if you believe in the Jersey Devil, conspiracies come along with it.

This sort of chap?

It depends on your explanation for Jersey Devil.

If you think it is unknown, but natural animal that must eat, sleep, poop and die, then you must have explanation why no devil lairs, feces or remains have been found, and conspiracy by authorities who are deliberately hiding the remains is most plausible one.

This is official tinfoil hat explanation for Bigfoot - the feds in black helicopters arrive and seize any sasquatch remains only evidence left are redneck tales told around campfire.

If you see it as literal devil from hell or other supernatural entity, no cooperation of earthly mortal authorities is necessary.

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