site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   31312 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026

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 Pogroms Will Continue Until We All Get Along

This is some good old fashioned culture warring. Happy New Year, y'all.

This clip has been popping up on twitter recently, most likely because Elon Musk re-tweeted it.

It's a doozy. I'm probably in too deep in AI land, but I thought for a moment it may have been a very well done deepfake. The cliches are just too juicy:

  • Calling for a focused investigation to various Republican personalities ex post facto after an (assumed) 2026-2028 Democratic sweep of house, senate, and white house. This is the pogrom vibe.
  • Over use of the term "accountability" which is not only grating, but an open code word for punishment / retribution.
  • Packing the Supreme Court.

A little Wiki background on the host here turns up the clown world dial even more. This is an atheist progressive white woman who has a podcast with a title that is synonymous with exasperation. She's been wanting to speak to the manager since before it was cool. The Wiki entry concludes with a Hasan Piker endorsement. Hashtag resistance, hashtag StayWoke.

I thought both left and right were starting to slip into a post-post-liberal dichotomy. Gen Z conservatism was figuring out how long is was going to stay in its Nick Fuentes giga-irony phase before figuring out how to TradLife it up but with good vibes. Gen Z liberalism was establishing a pansexual polycule, ordering designer embryos, microdosing, and flirting with anti-semitism. Yas Queen, Globalize the Intifada.

Turning down my own sarcasm, this appears to be like a kind of resistance-within-the-resistance of severly disaffected former Obama style liberals / progressives who have decided to go full Provisional IRA. It isn't the weirdo terminally online language of Gen-Z etc, but a hyper violent rhetorical style of a group that feels they are the besieged templars of the Final Stand against The Big Bad. I didn't think this was, well, real. I thought the "Karen" archetype was mostly a lot of bad looks on very bad days for otherwise milquetoast suburban ladies. Mostly, I felt sympathy.

But these folks seem serious! If this is TollBooth losing some of his childlike wonder of the world, so be it.

this appears to be like a kind of resistance-within-the-resistance of severely disaffected former Obama style liberals / progressives who have decided to go full Provisional IRA.

Please. This means they're not the Provos*, they're the Continuity IRA, as distinct from the Real IRA, another split-off grouping who were/are more effective or at least have survived longer (allegedly they got the nickname the Cokes because, like Coca-Cola, they were The Real Thing). I think the blow your whistle types are more prone to the splitting and lack of effectiveness of the Continuity than the Real.

*Genealogy equivalents: If the traditional Democratic party is the Official IRA/Sinn Féin, the Obama liberals were the Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin, the progressives/DSA affiliates were the INLA/IRSP and offshoots, the SJW wing of that were the Real IRA and the ICE ICE baby lot are the Continuity. Fissioning like an amoeba on Ritalin seems to be a hallmark of Marxist-Leninist groups.

Awesome comment. Thanks for the actual info and the great writing stemming from a single phrase in my original post. THis is why I keep coming back to the motte.

Thank you, I will cherish this kind word the next time I manage to get myself smacked down by the mods (no, Amadan, I'm not saying I'm deliberately going to do this, don't get twitchy just yet!) 😁

"Lock her up!" was a big part of Trump's platform in 2016. I'm not sure why some random podcaster saying this is particularly interesting, You can find thousands of podcasters saying every politician you can think of should be locked up for one reason or another. I think there is a sentiment among liberals that democrats need to start playing dirtier, because the republicans continually reap the benefits of defecting from norms. Merrick Garland being a prime example of that, and why there is talk of packing the courts as revenge.

There's a very large difference between "lock her up" and "lock them all up and be grateful we aren't having them all industrially executed". Particularly when the "her" in question is someone who has been accused of criminal offenses for decades at that point - note that Trump didn't call to lock up Harris. The irony is that Hilary and Bill Clinton might be closer to jail now after being held in contempt over their refusal to testify regarding Jeffrey Epstein.

"lock her up" was a presidential candidate. I am not sure who is saying "lock them all up and be grateful we aren't having them all industrially executed" (the SJ left is generally not too fond of gas chambers, I think). If it is Newsom, I will grant you that it is worse.

I am sure that some politician somewhere is saying that a Democrat administration will be going over the conduct of Trump's ICE with a very fine toothed comb, and prosecute any agents who violated any departmental regulations which were on the books at the time.

I do not see this as particularly bad. Trump is running the DoJ as a weapon against his enemies, so turnabout would be fair. Sadly, I am also convinced that it won't be happening. Having federal agents who enforce your ideas with impunity is useful to any administration, and establishing a precedent of them getting persecuted by subsequent administrations would end this. This is also why we will not see a court martial over the bombing of shipwrecked sailors.

I am sure that some politician somewhere is saying that a Democrat administration will be going over the conduct of Trump's ICE with a very fine toothed comb, and prosecute any agents who violated any departmental regulations which were on the books at the time.

With the same creative and novel legal theories they used against Trump, I'm sure. Going to be amazing watching the gerontocratic Dems "discover" that enforcing laws they themselves wrote and passed decades ago is domestic terrorism or something.

The most prominent example I'm aware of is Hakeem Jeffries calling ICE a lawless organization engaged in state violence, and vaguely threatening to prosecute them in what very much looks like an attempt to intimidate federal agents.

I haven't seen anything that extreme from real '28 Democrat contenders, but let me ask you this. Remember the clip about giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, where every single Dem candidate raised their hand? Imagine the following question: "If you win the 2028 election, will you commit to prosecuting the fascist Trump administration and it's supporters to a level comparable to the Nuremburg trials?"

Which 2028 Dem candidates do you think would say "no"?

Having federal agents who enforce your ideas with impunity is useful to any administration, and establishing a precedent of them getting persecuted by subsequent administrations would end this.

Which is exactly why I would expect the Dems to throw anything at the wall to force out, if not jail, every fed and ICE agents who supported Trump.

I do not see this as particularly bad. Trump is running the DoJ as a weapon against his enemies, so turnabout would be fair.

If turnabout is fair, then what he's doing right now is fair, and any retaliation would just be a new aggression.

The way I see it, the Obama administration weaponized the DoJ to harm Trump. Biden (or whomever was calling the shots) certainly leaned on the DoJ to make sure that the J6 crowd was prosecuted harshly, without the leniency afforded to BLM rioters.

In his 2nd term, Trump doubled down on the politicization of the DoJ. Blanket pardons for all J6, withdrawing the security clearances of law firms who had offended him by representing his opponents (at least until they kissed his ring), starting an investigation into Good's wife (but not in the shooting), pardoning one Latin American president who was convicted of drug trafficking while at the same time kidnapping another one on likely much flimsier evidence of the same, pardoning people who bribed him by buying his shitcoin, etc pp.

I think that the politicization of the DoJ is bad no matter who is in charge, and I will grant you that the Dems started the circle, but clearly Trump drove it to new heights.

Are we just gonna skip over how Trump ended up with a mugshot being taken, and "muh 34 felonies"? If you're including pardons, why ignore Biden's signoff pardoning Faucci, his son, and a bunch of other people for anything they could have possibly been charged with, before any accusation was even made?

I think that the politicization of the DoJ is bad no matter who is in charge, and I will grant you that the Dems started the circle, but clearly Trump drove it to new heights.

That's a reasonable position, but I don't know if you can derive "turnabout is fair play" from it.

Indeed. The only reasonable conclusion is that everyone of consequence is driven by an inescapable desire for totality. Side with whoever ends with you on top, or accustom yourself to your position beneath the iron heel of history.

And may the best at executing justice win.

I'm not sure why some random podcaster saying this is particularly interesting

Not saying this is the case here, but randos can easily turn out to be more representative of a movement than official leadership. For example, for years people here were saying that "social justice" / woke is not representative of the mainstream left, even though it took over pretty much the entirety of the movement, the corporate sector and the government. Many were even denying it even exists as a coherent ideology right up until Trump won for a second time, and they switched to declaring it dead.

Not saying this is the case here, but randos can easily turn out to be more representative of a movement than official leadership.

Well I think what can happen is that people within the movement start competing with each other to see who is the most extreme. And I can easily see social media exacerbating this problem.

"Lock her up!" was a big part of Trump's platform in 2016. I'm not sure why some random podcaster saying this is particularly interesting,

Yeah this pretty much sums up the whole thing for me.

progressives who have decided to go full Provisional IRA

I wonder how far the Provos would have gotten if they had been made up entirely of middle aged women with not a single military aged male to be found.

Talk to Bernadette Devlin about that 😁 Or for paramilitary activity, the Price sisters.

There is something very interesting going on with middle-aged White women, you see it with the hosts of this podcast and with all the recent ICE protests too. Obviously, I get middle-aged women being the moralizing demographic of Christian moms protesting video games, but recently White women seem to be radicalized with a degree of violence that is unfamiliar and shocking to me. Now, they aren't going out and committing mass shootings but they seem to have an open bloodthirst that seems very uncharacteristic. Anyone have any theories what is happening here?

Edit: The fact that Jennifer Welch is a divorced divorce attorney probably puts her in the 99th percentile for hatred towards men.

Are the more radical or less afraid of the consequences? Historically this demographic would have been meeker than they wish to be because they would be afraid of the consequences. Starting a fight as a 45 year old mom is a bad idea. Violence is rarely worth it as a high risk high reward strategy for fit young men. Women would have been too afraid of getting hurt.

These demonstrators learned especially through BLM that their behaviour has no consequences. They are not used to being in an environment where actions have physical consequences. They are used to screeching and the world babying them.

The fact that Jennifer Welch is a divorced divorce attorney probably puts her in the 99th percentile for hatred towards men.

I'm willing to give divorce attorneys a pass on pretty much anything. Back in April I was having a really bad day at work. I was appearing for a Zoom deposition and instead of doing it at a hotel Plaintiff's counsel thought it was a good idea for an old guy with limited technical ability to do it from his home without assistance. He lived in the middle of nowhere. And there had just been major storms in the area. The whole thing was delayed due to technical difficulties beginning about 15 minutes in, and every time we tried to continue with questioning some other issue would occur. After several hours of this the court reporter had a "technical expert" call in and try to walk the guy through some process. This woman had a high, whiny voice and talked to the guy like he was in kindergarten. I was about at the end of my rope, it was 1 pm, and the guy had answered about ten questions so far.

I went into the kitchen to get coffee and the wisened old of-counsel in my office asked me how I was doing. I told him that I probably died in a car wreck on the way to work and was actually in hell, and proceeded to tell him about my shitty morning. He said "Just look on the bright side: You could be practicing family law. And you'd have to carry a gun." That pretty much stopped me cold and I vowed that I wouldn't get too annoyed by minor professional inconveniences anymore.

I would add that I interned for a family law judge in law school, which judge handled child custody, and it's nothing I have any desire to get within a mile of.

I heard horror stories from my own divorce attorney (who I came to know socially as well). She never said anything about fearing harm from an aggrieved party, but the job does seem to involve having to deal with people who are going through the worst thing in their lives, which brings out the absolute worst in themselves as human beings. Things like a divorcing couple burning through $30k in billable hours fighting over a $1500 table that neither of them actually wants - they just want to hurt the other person.

It sounded like a ringside seat for the lowest tier of reality TV, except you're responsible for one of the malevolent idiots on the show.

Jennifer Welch is a divorced divorce attorney

That seems to be her co-host, Angie Sullivan. Welch is (was?) an interior designer. Both are divorced, though.

"By 2025, Welch scaled down her job as an interior designer and Sullivan had left her job as a divorce attorney in order to focus on the podcast."

Anyone have any theories what is happening here?

Internet outrage is inherently futile. You can doomscroll through endless provocation, but no short form video is ever going to give your ape brain the catharsis it wants. That's why these same women go on Scream Retreats and post videos of themselves having unhinged meltdowns. And that's why they spiral into more and more extreme rhetoric (and eventually, action) - because no amount of performative fury spewed into a screen ever actually scratches that itch. Combine that with a total lack of experience with real violence, and the end result is this nonsense.

One of the notable things about the MN shooting was how hard people went giving Good the benefit of the doubt. Even most people who think it was a justifiable shooting presume she couldn't have really had a murderous intent. I doubt that's a valid presumption. We don't have info about her media habits, but given who she was associated with and what she was doing, it seems very plausible that she was mainlining deranged homicidal ideation towards ICE agents, in the form of videos and posts from women and soyboys who think of the situation as something between a Marvel movie and a 7 year old daydreaming about fighting off bandits.

Why not run the ICE agent over? They're basically Nazi Death Eaters. None of the videos in which some septum-pierced crazy person loomed at the camera while calling for the deaths of federal agents ever raised the possibility that they were people, or might leave a real corpse. They're basically CGI robot aliens that don't even bleed.

I presume she fantasized about using lethal violence and ICE agents, and that she would realize those fantasies if given sufficient permission structure by society. She surely held a general malice towards ICE, as presumably most ICE agents do towards these types of protesters. I still think it unlikely that she meant to drive into him at that moment. I doubt she was capable of the 3d spatial awareness necessary to clip him just enough to hurt but not seriously injure. Mostly I think it was woman driver not correctly perceiving how big her vehicle was and how it would accelerate on a slippery road.

and that she would realize those fantasies if given sufficient permission structure by society.

The permission structure is here. She went to an openly advertised training session to learn about how to ram ICE agents with her car. Approximately zero people on her side condemn her for hitting an ICE agent, and approximately 100% of them would have openly feted her if she killed him. The only Democrat I am aware of who is calling this behavior/mentality a bad thing is John Fetterman, who is so unpopular with his party that he ought to flip teams if he wants a shot at being reelected.

as presumably most ICE agents do towards these types of protesters.

No, massive difference in "type" of malice. In video after video, the attitude I see from ICE towards these protestors is the same attitude a retail worker has towards Karens. They are annoying fucking bitches, and sometimes they escalate things into genuinely stressful situations, but you mostly just want them to go the fuck away. And if they did go away, they would transmute from "target of malice" to "amusing work anecdote" about an hour later.

And the ICE attitude is actually even less extreme than that. Part of what makes the retail worker so molten furious is how powerless they feel. Conversely, the ICE agents are allowed to sass back and if things escalate enough, forcibly arrest the entitled assholes.

I still think it unlikely that she meant to drive into him at that moment. I doubt she was capable of the 3d spatial awareness necessary to clip him just enough to hurt but not seriously injure. Mostly I think it was woman driver not correctly perceiving how big her vehicle was and how it would accelerate on a slippery road.

Sounds like women drivers who put themselves in stressful situations are inherently a threat to the public.

She went to an openly advertised training session to learn about how to ram ICE agents with her car.

Do you have a source for this? It's the first I've heard of it.

NY Post.

link

I didn't see anything in this article to corroborate your specific claim. Per the article:

ICE Watch and adjacent groups can also turn confrontational — with numerous instances of activists ramming agents with their cars in the past.

“[Renee Good] was trained against these ICE agents — what to do, what not to do, it’s a very thorough training,” Leesa said.

“To listen to commands, to know your rights, to whistle when you see an ICE agent,” she added.

The article does not say that Renee Good received training in 'how to ram ICE agents with her car', merely that she had received training from ICE Watch. The article does seem to imply that Good's training involved ramming, but recall how "The Media Very Rarely Lies" -- the NY Post isn't stating it as fact, but merely pushing that interpretation by how it arranges true facts, in the same way that left-leaning outfits did their best to slander Rittenhouse without directly lying about the facts of the case.

She went to an openly advertised training session to learn about how to ram ICE agents with her car.

Presumably it was advertised as less escalatory than that, as a fig leaf if nothing else?

Now, they aren't going out and committing mass shootings but they seem to have an open bloodthirst that seems very uncharacteristic. Anyone have any theories what is happening here?

Retvrn to ancient tradition of Germanic Screeching Women.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3ullteTvPiw

I’ve never actually read a kulak post before, rather I only vaguely recall his posting and people sneering at him here.

That was actually a pretty good read though. A little long, but a decent bit of humor and some novel ideas.

I suspect it's a sign that an era is coming to a close. Usually, women have other men who would do the dirty work for them. If they feel that they have to do it themselves, something is probably collapsing.

I don't think it's a sign of collapse, feminism has had its share of radical rhetoric for decades now and that hasn't slowed it down. The more worrying explanation is that it's just a sign of a more general radicalisation, and if even seemingly normal women are willing to get locked up or shot for their cause that's all the more moral sanction for the men in that group to take it further.

It's not a rigorous historical point but I would think an exhausted radical movement looks something more like nationalism in Northern Ireland just before the fighting stopped, where the women are marching for an end to the violence and only a few stubborn men remain committed to it.

I am not sure this is really very surprising, to be honest. I'm not sure I can put it better than Kipling:

Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise. Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

but

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.

One could go a bit further and speculate that the arrangement Kipling describes:

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her

Has broken down and been washed away, particularly as the older Christian gender norms Kipling was familiar with have increasingly been forgotten, and commensurate with this breakdown we might expect to see ever stronger evidence that "the female of the species is more deadly than the male."

Now that one of their own has been killed they want others to commit bloodshed on their behalf?

But the "one of their own" in question was acting in an absolutely unhinged, uncharacteristic of women with children, manner, which got her killed in the first place.

Who cares? She was of the tribe and was killed by one not of the tribe. Thus, in fact, she was not unhinged. She was stunning and brave. If she acted uncharacteristic, no doubt she was forced to by the barbarity other tribe. Truly the other tribe's perfidy knows no bounds, but needs must.

There's something to this. Death was meant to be suffered by the others. The Karen class as never meant to endure the ultimate consequences of their actions. No wonder so the post-shooting protests were so virulent. The group that makes up the majority of progressive organisers has finally been attacked.

This is actually a reasonably common position among left-wing intellectuals. They look at the evidence from the last 10 years, particularly Donald Trump winning two out of three presidential elections, and conclude that America simply is not ready for democracy. Sometimes they come out and say it outright. The proposed solution is usually somewhere between Reconstruction and Denazification.

I've seen it said that nobody (or vanishingly few) truly wants a democracy, they simply want a tyrant who's on their side.

The radical left has always thought this. It’s why communist states are always democracies except that various groups of people can’t vote because they’re reactionaries and of course the party has to approve every candidate to make sure no counterrevolutionaries slip through against the will of the people, obviously.

always democracies

Sometimes they're people's democratic republics, because they're definitely reaffirming, and not protesting.

Vaush isn't a left-wing intellectual he's a left-wing lolcow.

Nobody who isn't willing to become a lolcow has the fortitude to be a public intellectual.

I thought both left and right were starting to slip into a post-post-liberal dichotomy. I thought the "Karen" archetype was mostly a lot of bad looks on very bad days for otherwise milquetoast suburban ladies.

So first, labels.

Karens are, above all else, hyper-establishment. They tend to be the less morally developed individuals of their group with the time to take that out on everyone else. Take the perennial reasons liberals claim this about conservatives- "they're just not at the proper state of moral development, and have never been".

And I agree with this assertion- Karens tend to be Kohlberg 3 and 4s. 5s and 6s are generally too morally developed to be Karens, though they retain the ability and vocabulary to Karen out as needed.

What Karen uses to justify herself varies based on what the establishment is. When that establishment is the Christian Right, they're good Christian women; when that establishment is racist, they're protesting bussing; when that establishment is "men should beat their wives", they're the ones justifying that to their daughters; when that establishment is "spare the rod spoil the child", they're beating that evil left-handedness out of you; when that establishment is "kill the X", they're the ones telling the machetes where to go; when that establishment is "cut your daughter's clit off", they're the ones holding 'em down. But they always use the Establishment as justification [1].

I thought both left and right were starting to slip into a post-post-liberal dichotomy.

They kind of are, but what the two sides are going to be is kind of indeterminate, because much as the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" are in flux, so too is the economic model of the world in transition from the mid 20th century (where physical labor was the limiting factor in economic growth) into the 21st (where time is the limiting factor- modern high tech manufacturing doesn't actually require huge amounts of capital or physical labor, but require decades to spin up, software development requires no capital and no physical labor, standard manufacturing requires some capital but little physical labor due to automation). It might legitimately not matter what they think if their ability to exercise political power is compromised so severely that the middle class is erased entirely (it won't really look like that, but elections mattering less and less, and splitting across 51/49 lines, is what this looks like- countries with a larger middle class will still feel the need to jail opponents though, which is why France and the US have done that [publicly], though that failed in the US' case).

Gen Z conservatism was figuring out how long is was going to stay in its Nick Fuentes giga-irony phase before figuring out how to TradLife it up but with good vibes. Gen Z liberalism was establishing a pansexual polycule, ordering designer embryos, microdosing, and flirting with anti-semitism.

But the important part here is that, for the most part, the Gen Zs tend to leave each other alone. Gen Z "liberalism" votes Establishment, and Gen Z "conservatism" votes Reform, mostly out of convenience- but Gen Z liberals are not natively Establishment any more than Gen Z conservatives are Reform, that's just how it shakes out right now. Gen Z UBI vs. Boomer DEI (Gen Y is split across gender and property-owning lines; women and owners want DEI, all others want UBI if they don't have a job, or are anti-DEI if they do).

but a hyper violent rhetorical style of a group that feels they are the besieged templars of the Final Stand against The Big Bad.

This is what Caesar's assassins said to themselves. It didn't work out very well for them, and I don't expect this will. Perhaps noteworthy is that both groups were in their 40s- and if you have something to lose from the establishment turning against you, that's when you're going to act (before that, you're flexible enough to make it out OK; after that, you already have one foot in the grave).

[1] The stereotype is female for a reason- men can do this, but for evopsych reasons, men at Kohlberg 4 are typically just the executors of Karen's will. They'll knit the ghost costumes/burkas/Hugo Boss uniforms but they leave the actual enforcement of obscenity-banning, cross-burning, witch-hunting, and clit-cutting to the men. (For evopsych reasons, it's useful to humanity for women to pretend to be less blameworthy, even if they're all Greta Bösel inside.)

Ok, we've seen what the institutional left in the US trying to target the right looks like before. It was... the Biden admin. Not Biden personally, he was sundowning for most of it. But figures like Ron Klain and Merrick Garland are pretty core to the DNC apparatus- if 'democrats take the gloves off' has a face, it's one we've seen. Their attempt at internal repression was largely a fizzle. They lost a domestic hard power confrontation before they were even halfway through!

One thing to remember about democrats vs republicans is that- not for every case of right vs left, but for this one- their failure modes are different. It's optimate vs populare, in the original meaning of the term- how they derive their sense of internal legitimacy, of deserving to win. The democrats are representing the class that should be in charge, simple as. The republicans are representing the thoughts we all have but which the experts won't entertain, simple as. Republicans thus have an internal telotic pressure to move and then take the gloves all the way off. Democrats have an internal telotic pressure to focus group and study the issue until they can issue new regulations.

Now, the process of stasis is well advanced in the American republic, but it's important to remember that optimate choleric lashout to enshrine the mos maiorum virtually never works, and the next attempt at Sulla won't work either. Progressive elites talking out loud are quite open about their views that the mos maiorum of democracy is progressive institutionalism, damn the voters. It's been published all over The Atlantic. The unwritten constitution, in their view, is a set of values. A set I'm sure we've all seen before, which puts self expression- especially over gender and sexuality- above ancient rights. They'll lash out, impotently, it will fizzle, and the backlash will enthrone the caudillo. All this has happened before, and it will happen again. As a matter of fact I wouldn't rule out that Trump is that caudillo and Biden was the Sulla. Stasis can't be stopped at this juncture.

To be fair, Garland got savaged for not being quick enough, or plentiful enough, with the prosecutions. So for the progs, you can very easily, very quickly, slip from Hero of the People to Counter-Revolutionary Wrecker Running Dog. As, I suppose, we've seen before with Communist states.

(Okay, that linked article wasn't very savage in the savaging, but I did see online calls for heads on spikes, as it were).

Ok, we've seen what the institutional left in the US trying to target the right looks like before. It was... the Biden admin. Not Biden personally, he was sundowning for most of it. But figures like Ron Klain and Merrick Garland are pretty core to the DNC apparatus- if 'democrats take the gloves off' has a face, it's one we've seen.

That's a wild take. Biden and Garland were pretty explicit about not targeting the right and slow-walking any legal action and a pretty common sentiment on the left (or maybe just the far-left? certainly not the NYT-wing of the "left" mainstream media) is to be upset at them for that.

Taking them at their word is pretty wild considering we literally have FBI memos noting that there are no non-ideological reasons for targeting the people they've been sicked on. That's what the 'FBI targeting traditional Catholics' memos were about- the agents mostly wondering why they were supposed to be doing this, considering they're infiltrating people who are not white supremacists, dislike white supremacists, and have no affinity for terrorism. Or considering the novel theories like the Doug Mackey prosecution.

Let's flip this- the right wing twitterati is frustrated with Trump for being too moderate with his priorities, slow walking immigration enforcement, etc. Is that, uh, objectively correct?

the right wing twitterati is frustrated with Trump for being too moderate with his priorities, slow walking immigration enforcement, etc. Is that, uh, objectively correct?

It's not quite the same, but, yes, I'd consider the claim that Trump was taking immigration enforcement seriously to be only slightly less absurd. The Trump administration is very interested in the theater of immigration enforcement, but has repeatedly avoided or backed down from doing anything actually effective. It's clear they don't actually believe in the goal (likely because it would be bad for the profits of their funders) and merely want theater for their base. That said, this is one, among many, areas where the theater of the Trump administration is itself at least somewhat advancing the long-term goal of destroying the cultural concept of the US being welcoming to immigrants.

He's certainly being not right wing enough on gun control.

How so? Trump's Big Beautiful Bill was going to give the gun lobby the biggest win in a generation, before that provision sank in congress. Trump has done virtually nothing else about the question.

His administration seems to be on the anti-gun side of United States v. Hemani, though it's on the pro-gun side for Wolford v. Lopez.

or maybe just the far-left?

Definitely not just the far left. Highly engaged people across the range of the left were increasingly steamed over the fact that Garland was slow-rolling prosecution trying to maintain propriety (failing to grasp that there was literally nothing he could do to convince Trumpists of his bona fides).

Garland never convinced anyone beyond partisans of his bona fides because they were not capable of being established. He spent tons of political capital exaggerating J6 and pursuing extremely long sentences often with novel legal theories (many of which has to be struck down on appeal for being facially absurd). Then he went all in on novel legal theories to go after an ex president. There was no good faith to establish.

So, how big or significant is this group? "Got quote-tweeted by the outgroup and caused a wave of outrage" is not a good measure of relevance, and all Wikipedia has to offer is that it once got nominated for some award (that I haven't heard of). It's not like the other side doesn't have self-published clickwhores who fantasize about political violence to give their audience warm fuzzies.

So, how big or significant is this group?

I would guess it's not that big or significant. But I do get the sense that within the Democratic party, there is a growing contingent of people who feel pretty strongly that their coalition must seize power By Any Means Necessary, which includes defecting from various norms. (e.g. 9 Justices on the Supreme Court). Of course, part of the problem is that there are a lot of people on the other side of the aisle with similar sentiments.

If both sides feel that they must "fight fire with fire," it's easy to envision the situation spinning out of control.

Well, whether it is actually growing is what is yet to be established.

If both sides feel that they must "fight fire with fire," it's easy to envision the situation spinning out of control.

It sure is easy, but that just sounds like an indictment of us here. This community and its predecessors have been in the business of Envisioning various happenings of the sort for as long as we have been around. The lesson to learn for the internet culture war commentator is that the sheeple can remain asleep for longer than you can remain solvent (in testosterone needed to be excited for a paroxysm of political violence).

Well, whether it is actually growing is what is yet to be established.

Agreed, I am just going by my general impressions. For example, after Trump left office, there was a ferocious lawfare campaign launched against him. I don't recall seeing anything like that ever before. Ideally there should be polls done at regular intervals over many years. For example, Democratic voters could be asked, every year, questions like this:

Do you think that the former Republican president should be investigated and held accountable for any crimes he committed while in office?

Based on my impressions, I think it's pretty likely that the percentage saying "yes" to this question will have risen significantly over the last 20 years.

It sure is easy, but that just sounds like an indictment of us here.

That may be, but I don't think it changes my analysis.

You might be reading too much into this. One of the hosts is a divorce attorney. Female divorce attorneys have been the most rabid Karens since before the term ever existed. They are the epitome of angry radicalization. Trying to use one as the bellwether for a movement is probably not accurate.

The Hasan Piker to Morning Mimosa pipeline

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