site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   21842 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 1, 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.

The Elevation of Fringe Theories to Official US Foreign Policy

Rewind 10 years, and the only ones expressing dire concern over racial demographics in the US and Europe were very fringe, low-status, rag-tag group of political radicals called the "Alt Right". At the time it seemed scandalous that anyone would have much concern over European civilization becoming majority non-White, at best it was just crazy-talk but more commonly it was denounced as an indictment on someone's character for advocating for any sort of political or cultural initiative to stop or reverse this development. Although that is still the median interpretation, since the 2020 Great Awokening there's been a rapid expansion and a mainstreaming of these political views- the greatest indication of that yet is the release of the official 2025 National Security Strategy that directly identifies these concerns, as well as actually stopping and reversing them, a matter of US foreign policy. My emphasis:

C. Promoting European Greatness

American officials have become used to thinking about European problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. There is truth to this, but Europe’s real problems are even deeper.

Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP—down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today—partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness.

But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.

Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.

...

American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.

Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.

America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent— and, of course, to Britain and Ireland. The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness.

The long-standing political strategy of "Democratic" Europe has been to form whatever coalition of center-left/right parties is necessary to prevent far right parties who oppose this from attaining power, while at the same time engaging in strong censorship and political suppression of right-wing parties- an artifact of the psychological warfare against Europe which we called Denazification. This is behavior is identified as a national security threat in this document, which advocates the United States "Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations."

The devil is in the details of implementation, but this document represents the codification of fringe Alt-Right views from 10 years ago. It's no longer a "conspiracy theory" or "White Supremacy" to identify the political forces actively orchestrating the demographic replacement of European nations, it's directly identified as a foreign policy issue of the United States, which is a major step forward, with mainstream publications now openly acknowledging the issue without the usual trappings of denouncing racism or White Supremacy:

President Donald Trump echoed similar warnings during a visit to the United Kingdom last year, saying mass immigration would "destroy Europe" and that the continent was "not going to survive" unless governments dramatically change course.

The White House defended the warning, saying Europe is already suffering the consequences of mass immigration.

"The devastating impacts of unchecked migration and those migrants’ inability to assimilate are not just a concern for President Trump but for Europeans themselves, who have increasingly noted immigration as one of their top concerns," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "These open border policies have led to widespread examples of violence, spikes in crime, and more, with detrimental impacts on the fiscal sustainability of social safety net programs."

Some observers have noted the relative deemphasis on preparing for conflict with China and pivoting towards Western-hemispheric control, a revitalizing of the Monroe Doctrine. Although I am a critic of Trump, I have to say I am supportive of this national security strategy- although implementation is ultimately what matters and in all likelihood a Democrat administration would strike much of this. But it's a major step forward in acknowledging an existential crisis that until very recently was completely taboo.

I imagine the intelligence communities of five-eyes are using sophisticated AI to inform them of risks, with AI not yet available to the public, and with the best prompt engineering in the world. What would an AI that knows everything about the genetics of IQ and prosociality say is the biggest risk to the West? And I imagine that the intelligence community has much better data on genetics, too.

Huh. I would bet the intelligence communities have AI that's absolute crap and that the commercial stuff is as good as it gets.

Their architectures may be behind the times, but their training data is uniquely comprehensive.

They have AI trained on all our racist group chats.

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