site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24182 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 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.

This could have been an interesting post with more effort.

Fuentes is almost certainly a closeted homosexual, who like many closeted homosexuals strongly disliked women. This likely somewhat informs his misogyny.

You go to war with the generals you have, not with the generals you wish you had.

Yes, Nick Fuentes is most likely a homosexual, practicing or otherwise. But he is also one of the most promising young leaders the alt-right has. As long as he keeps it on the down low, we can look the other way.

From "On Homosexuality And Uranus" by AntiDem:

Anime homosexuals are carefully portrayed as not representing a threat to the prevailing cisheteronormist order. Let us take consider an early example, Sailors Uranus and Neptune from Sailor Moon. Though obviously (and yet never quite explicitly) a lesbian couple, one of whom has some prominent transgender (or at least highly androgynous) qualities, they never really make any demands for accommodation on the world that surrounds them. Sailor Uranus does not wish to upend the society around her in order to gain the validation involved in having her lifestyle redefined as normal; she only desires to be left in peace to discreetly live as she wishes. She doesn’t want to change marriage laws, get you fired for saying that you don’t like her, or tear down the faith of the polis.

And it is because of this that she can safely be left alone by the larger society around her. She is not a threat, so she can be treated as a curiosity – liked by some, disliked by others, but simply not worth bothering with on a societal level. The implicit, unspoken bargain that she makes with the larger society is both reasonable and humane – she gains a strong measure of security through obscurity, and the mores of the society around her remain secure. That is largely how it is in Japan, and how it largely used to be in the West as well. Laws against homosexuality in the West existed, but were essentially a hedge against precisely what has happened now that they have been removed – open, politicized homosexuality becoming a serious threat to the existing order. As for the discreet, private practice of homosexuality, laws against it are and always were virtually unenforceable (for many reasons, including the general disinterest of Westerners in taking any great pains to enforce them against those who kept their proclivities private), and when they were on the books they remained virtually unenforced.

To mix fictional metaphors a bit, I am reminded of the Borg from the Star Trek franchise. In one episode of, I believe, The Next Generation, several members of the crew find that they can, if they are discreet and quiet, move unmolested through a Borg ship, though they are in plain view of numerous Borg drones. The Borg, it turns out, are interested in assimilation at a civilizational level, not an individual level. Thus, if an individual, or even a very small group, moves through their ship and seems to present no threat, they are ignored. Below a certain level of prominence, they are simply not worth doing anything about.

The ironic thing is that Western man requires misogyny, because women lack constructive political instincts and need to be sidelined from politics if the polity is to survive.

And we're only getting it from Fuentes, a person so untrustworthy as to be practically utterly useless.

edit after I got the 30 day ban, I thought everyone knew that women weren't selected for being able to cooperate effectively in large groups?

Politics in mankind's very, very long pre-civilized past was typically war or war-related organisation like alliances and as war has always been and still is an exclusive domain of men(e.g. consider which sex has a shoulder adapted for throwing or what's the sex breakdown of war corpses in Ukraine ), from that it follows that men were way more selected for being able to cooperate constructively and effectively for survival purposes and selected for the ability to put away all of their petty feuds and differences in the face of greater threats.

Because in case of military defeat, they were basically dead re: posterity (dead and slaves don't procreate - American black slaves were an exception) and women were generally -outside of nomad cultures- still valuable as slaves or second wives so whatever happened, they were not doomed.

Ugh.

I could imagine a well-argued version of this, but I’m no longer expecting to see it from you. This comment looks like a strict downgrade from last week, perhaps a return to form.

Thirty days this time.

Men on the far right are disproportionately gay and men on the far left are disproportionately (heterosexual) sexual predators. This has always been true. The Nazis and Italian fascists were pretty gay, the 1968ers rioted at the Sorbonne over getting access to the girls’ dorms overnight. Why? Because straight pervs go where the women are (the left), and gay ones fetishize masculinity, maleness, and in particular often sexually fixate on male ‘brotherhood’ in the army, navy, male organizations, which fascist groups usually are.

Hold up. Both the girls and the rioters in question were college students. How is that a case of sexual predation? I doubt rape was their intent.

Also, early Nazi and fascist groups usually formed among veterans of the world war; in other words, all of them were men and most of them were young. To state that they were disproportionately gay isn’t exactly saying much.

Hold up. Both the girls and the rioters in question were college students. How is that a case of sexual predation?

Also, early nazi and fascist groups usually formed among veterans of the world war; in other words, all of them were men and most of them were young. To state that they were disproportionately gay isn’t exactly saying much.

Not disputing far left males being disproportionately likely to be sexual predators, but weren't women actually underrepresented on the political left until the eighties at the earliest?

Favorite example of this is Jack Donovan. To his credit, he doesn't call himself "gay" because he hates the modern Gay/LGBTQ culture. He calls himself "androphyllic."

That Wiki photo. God bless.

Nazis weren't disproportionately gay.

Apart from Roehm, who else was a homosexual?

The SA which was by far the most classically fascist ideologically was pretty gay. Once a totalitarian party cements itself fully in the governance of the nation anyone ambitious joins, so the fact that few leading German political figures in terms of power in that era were actually gay is true but irrelevant.

The SA was rightly sidelined by a party that wanted to run a country, which requires more than streetfighters and the vastly more selective SS which replaced it wasn't noticeably gay. So calling the regime itself to have been disproportionately homosexual on the basis of one of its precursors, that got sidelined, is pretty odd and not valid.

The SA wasn't so much sidelined as buried.

Roehm's boyfriends.

I'm still giggling from William Shearer describing the early SA as subject to the kind of dramatic internecine squabbles only possible between homosexuals.

Specifically,

Many of its top leaders, beginning with its chief, Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts. Lieutenant Edmund Heines, who led the Munich S.A., was not only a homosexual but a convicted murderer. These two and dozens of others quarreled and feuded as only men of unnatural sexual inclinations, with their peculiar jealousies, can. (Page 120)

Shirer was one of the earlier and more vocal authors to claim that the Nazis were disproportionately gay, but my understanding is that that claim has been considered discredited since the 1960s. Obviously some were, but there’s no evidence the percentage was higher than that of the general population.

By the mid 1930s it had transitioned into a party of government and so serious people of all sexual persuasions wanted to climb to the top. It’s like if you suddenly put the Catholic Church or Church of England in charge of all politics the proportion of gay priests would fall quite rapidly.

It seems you're right.

Funny how that makes the far-right look actually better, as men who fetishize masculinity and brotherhood(but not homosexuality itself) due to a developmental quirk are somewhat more sympathetic than psychopaths and sexual predators into politics to gain power by exploiting man's egalitarian impulses.

My new theory is that self-accepting gays and sexually malformed people become the far left whereas self-denying members of those categories become the far right.

Since Biblical times, true engine of history has been and will remain the queers.

  • -12

The engine of history is that Adams [right/trad] follow Eves [left/prog] follow Snakes [classic/liberal].

It's popular to pretend Eve/prog and Snake/liberal are the same thing, especially if you're Adam/trad trying desperately to react to something Eve is doing. But if you equate them, you will fail just like everyone else in the past 50 years that tried.

Are radical centrists then those who accept but still hate themselves?

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