site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   22018 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 22, 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.

Challenge rejected, my posts are appropriate for a Culture War forum, and I'm not obsessed with talking about them so much as the rest of the world is obsessed with not talking about them to the degree that ought be appropriate in any serious analysis of Culture War.

If you feel that you're the prophet in the wilderness in this, then you are obviously not here to debate, but to preach: and are self-evidentially an unserious person. There's really no good reason to seriously consider anything you have to say because you have a monomaniacal zeal on this one topic that you will never give ground on.

Crushedoranges, if you disagree with anything I have written anywhere you can hit the "reply" button and I will debate you. But you have shown up here to complain about me talking about Jews and not to debate.

Crushedoranges, if you disagree with anything I have written anywhere you can hit the "reply" button and I will debate you.

People have done that. You ghost when you lose the debate, and then come back to repeat the exact same talking points a few weeks later. You've done this often enough that no one who has the wherewithal to debate you is willing to do it again, so you claim victory because no one will debate you and you pretend your arguments haven't been thoroughly dispensed with multiple times, going back years.

Can you cite an example of when I've ghosted a debate?

"Ghosting a debate" doesn't mean I neglect to reply to every single comment, or when I decide to give my opponent the last word. Feel free to cite one example when you think I've done what you've described, but you won't.

You have, for instance, engaged in debate with me and ceased responding.

That in itself is not bad - there are examples of the reverse, where I don't bother responding to a final comment by you. A conversation does not have to go forever.

It is, however, I think absolutely true that 1) you are consistently obsessed with Jews, to a conspiratorial degree, 2) you are unrelentingly hostile to Jews, and no matter how innocuous the behaviour of a Jew, you always attribute the worst possible motives both to the individual Jew and to the wider Jewish people, 3) you do not debate in good faith, but rather flit between unrelated claims in the manner of a conspiracy theory, connecting dots centuries and cultures apart into a theory of Jewish malignancy that you are committed to prior to any examination of evidence, and 4) you are uninterested in learning or any kind of intellectual growth.

Like Chesterton's madman (from the introduction only), I think your mind moves in small, self-contained circles:

Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms. He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity.

I hesitated to even make this comment, because I'm one of those who, as Amadan mentioned, has debated you and since concluded that there is no point doing it again.

Please consider what this says about you and your posting habits.

Look, crushedoranges was warned for criticising you. There's a chance I get warned as well, since this post is only discussing a member here who I do not think makes worthwhile contributions to the Motte. Technically it is not against the Motte's rules to obsessively hate Jews. But at the very least, it would be more interesting if you could find at least one other hobby.

Criticizing people (and their behavior) isn't against the rules, only making personal attacks (which you didn't do).

  • I replied to you 3 times, how is that "ghosting a debate" when I engage in a longer-than-average discussion.
  • Your last reply to me was over 30 hours after my last reply, a faster reply isn't a hard requirement but waiting more than a day makes it more likely I'll just let you have the last word.
  • Your reply was bad, saying things like You return to this "vertically integrated propaganda apparatus". That's a conspiracy. Let me present an alternative hypothesis - you are likely to find Jewish authors independently, without any particular coordination or malice, writing things relevant to them, which, yes, includes concerns about anti-semitism, and we are so wildly off base with each other we are at an impasse. Obviously they do coordinate and they are motivated by their particular identity.

You are absolutely wrong in this discussion, but I made my case and you made yours, if you want to return >30 hours after my last reply and get the last word be my guest. But this is absolutely not me ghosting a debate in any sense. You also called plainly observable reality a "conspiracy theory" and that makes it more likely I'm going to write off discussion with you because we simply aren't operating on similar enough premises. Is it a "conspiracy theory" that Bari Weiss being a pro-Zionist Jew was central to her being selected by the new proi-Zionist Jew owners to lead CBS news? What would you say if a Chinese billionaire who was as engrained in the CCP as Ellison is with Israel (Ellison family is largest private donor to IDF by the way) acquired CBS News, and installed to lead the network a Chinese Nationalist as fanatically loyal to the CCP as Bari Weiss is to Israel? "Nope no coordination here! I don't see any coordination do you? They just happen to be super passionate about China, calling it coordination is a conspiracy theory."

But whatever, not even here to rehash the debate, but you have absolutely not posted an example of me doing what @Amadan accused me of. I'm letting you have the last word because you are describing things as conspiracy theory that to me are plainly observable. So it's an impasse, the reader can read both and decide which perspective is more plausible. I'm not going to spend days debating this with you when you deny what are to me plainly observable premises.

This post is exclusively quibbling a debate from a year ago - I merely gave two example of past debate, one in which I made the final post and one in which you made the final post, and I said explicitly that a conversation doesn't have to go forever.

What I do think is that what crushedoranges said further up in the thread is true. Crushedoranges said:

Your protest rings hollow because you can seemingly not talk about any subject without bringing them up!

I challenge you to go a month - even a week! - without connecting the subject at hand to the perfidy and scheming of the Hebrew race. And this is a challenge that I believe you will fail because my Noticing powers didn't just stop at FBI statistics.

And:

If you feel that you're the prophet in the wilderness in this, then you are obviously not here to debate, but to preach: and are self-evidentially an unserious person. There's really no good reason to seriously consider anything you have to say because you have a monomaniacal zeal on this one topic that you will never give ground on.

Amadan also said:

People have done that. You ghost when you lose the debate, and then come back to repeat the exact same talking points a few weeks later. You've done this often enough that no one who has the wherewithal to debate you is willing to do it again, so you claim victory because no one will debate you and you pretend your arguments haven't been thoroughly dispensed with multiple times, going back years.

I believe these points are substantially true, and the fact that all you attempt to contest is the relatively trivial charge of whether you have "ghosted" a debate seems to me to be just further evidence of your fundamental unseriousness.

My accusation against you is that you are obsessed with Jews and either unable or uninterested in posting on any other topic, that you always take the most hostile interpretation of anything ever done by a Jewish person and generalise about Jewish people on that basis, and that your larger case against Jews or Judaism is a cobbled-together hodgepodge of isolated references, in the manner of a conspiracy theorist, isolated from any good-faith engagement with either Jewish individuals or Jews as a cultural and religious community.

At times people, myself included, have engaged with you and in my opinion at least made a solid case against you, and what you usually do is reply with a few of the same strung-together references and scary implications, then vanish for a week or two, and then return and keep repeating the same points again, unchanged. The natural result is for people like myself to just conclude that there is no point to engaging with you. It is always the same thing, it is always flawed in the same way, and smashing one's head into the brick wall is neither interesting nor enjoyable.

('Scary implications' is how I would sum up the linked discussion about the person in The Atlantic last year - you take the innocuous example of a Jew opposed to anti-semitism and implied from that wild theories about the supposed malice or racial hostility of the Jewish people overall. In this very post you engage in a motte-and-bailey. There's a highly-defensible motte along the lines of "there are lots of Jews in America, Jews are a successful group who are particularly concentrated in media industries, topics of concern to Jews tend to get more coverage", which I myself stated, but you use this to jump to a bailey of "the media is an organ of Jewish ethnonationalist propaganda". That, I think, is dishonest. But this is what you always do. Every possible observation involving Jewish people, to you, must be interpreted in the most negative light possible. Every instance of a Jew caring about other Jews, or even just a Jew who doesn't want to get beaten up for being a Jew, is evidence of their communal malevolence. There does not appear to be anything a Jewish person could do to avoid your hostility. They are pre-convicted.)

Anyway, maybe you want to nitpick only the charge of ghosting. It is true that you have engaged in discussions and left those discussions even while the other person was still making a case, but as I said, I'm not actually going to judge that too harshly. I explained in the above post what I do judgely harshly, and I think it stands.

I believe these points are substantially true, and the fact that all you attempt to contest is the relatively trivial charge of whether you have "ghosted" a debate seems to me to be just further evidence of your fundamental unseriousness.

No, I have contested that claim by counter-claiming that you are just offended by what ought be an appropriate level of discourse surrounding Jews in serious analysis of Culture War issues. And I do not care, you can complain about it all you want! The fact it makes people upset is a byproduct of the fact it strikes a nerve, as much as you'll deny it.

More comments

I don't keep links bookmarked like some people do. I guess I would if I wanted to come back and play gotcha later, but you know I know and you know I am not the only one who's noted this. You're fooling no one.

So crushedoranges accuses me of not being here to debate. I say, ok, point to anything I've posted you disagree with and we can debate. He refuses and says "debate is pointless."

Then you come in here and say I disappear for weeks at a time in order to avoid debate, and I say, ok, point to a single time you feel I've done that. You refuse and say "you're fooling no one."

The only ones making unfalsifiable claims are you and @crushedoranges. Because when I ask you to substantiate your accusations you refuse to do so.

And there's no point, because reducto ad iudaeus. If the root cause is the Jews, then debating the various means of how the Jews are at fault is both limited and uninteresting. (You allege they act through the WEF, I allege they act through the WTO: is there really a material difference to our positions?) And if they're not the root cause, and you refuse to accept that possibility, then what, exactly, are we debating?

I can't prove a null hypothesis. I can't prove that Jews aren't behind everything and there is no evidence that that possibly could. You may think yourself in an unassailable position but what you are really doing is being a bore that only talks about the Jews. There is no point debating you because you refuse to change your mind in the face of evidence to the contrary - or your standard of proof is so unrealistically high that nothing will convince you otherwise.

So, for emphasis: what is there possibly to debate, when all of your propositions end with the same conclusion? Don't try and squirm out of this, you reprehensible degenerate. Having the same answer to every question is not a superpower. 'The Jews Did It' is your only position of any substance, and I'm calling you out.

That's not a fact that can be debated on its terms: it's a strongly held belief on your part. And I can't reason you out of a belief or debate you into changing it. So sack up and do your big post on How The Jews Did It in the main thread: show us your revisionist history so the whole community can tear it apart.

If you can't, or don't want to, then shut the fuck up.

If you can't, or don't want to, then shut the fuck up.

Everything you say about @SecureSignals is true, but you still cannot talk to people like that. He's allowed to do his tiresome thing as long as he follows the rules, and you need to be civil when responding.

It's absolutely not true, I would challenge him or you to cite anything I've written that matches that characterization. He shirked when I asked him to, and you're going to shirk as well. Not surprising that you put on mod hat to endorse a comment that breaks the rules and mischaracterizes my arguments.

You don't get to accuse anyone of shirking. We've done this dance before and you have absolutely just faded on multiple occasions, for weeks, after someone took you down point by point. You know this is true and you know many of us remember it.

And nothing in my comment breaks the rules. I have to be civil to you. I don't have to respect your views or your tactics.

Ok, point to one example. Giving someone else the last word is not shirking a debate, the notion I disappear for weeks to avoid an argument is a false accusation. But feel free to point to a single instance where I've engaged in the behavior you're accusing me of, but you won't.

No, I'm not going to engage on your terms, because I have basic pattern-recognition ability. If I bring up an example, you're going to make up excuses on how your Jewposting isn't Jewposting and you having a Really Good Point that no one else seems to recognize.

I know a redditor gotcha when I see one. Your infinite capacity to waste other people's time and never admit fault does not make you any more correct.

You're unironically behaving like the Jews from Mein Kampf that Hitler so despised, who would be refuted of their nonsense day after day and return without a trace of shame repeating the same lies.

You know what you did, you clever Hebrew you.

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