site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22835 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.

It’s official. Hitler had a micropenis. Furthermore, Nick Fuentes is either a closeted homosexual or a 30 year old virgin.

I’m wondering to what extent far right political worldviews are influenced by the denial of sexual malformations or shortcomings. I decided that this forum would be a good place to explore the extent of this and perhaps collect more data on the phenomenon.

If any posters here at the motte would like to participate in an anonymous questionnaire, please DM me.

  • -48

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.

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.

Nazis weren't disproportionately gay.

Apart from Roehm, who else was a homosexual?

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.

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