site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20hr ago (text post)   3287 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My thesis on recent world events is that there is one simple explanation for everything Trump is doing. Namely, as a classic textbook narcissist, having also risen during the uniquely self centered context of the ‘80s and ‘90s business and television culture of the US, and having been propelled to the highest echelons a narcissist could taste, he’s beginning to sense his own physical and political mortality, certainly moreso than in his first term, and knowing that people will try to tarnish his name once he is out of power, he thus wants one and only one thing. For his name to appear prominently in the history books.

This is very simple and obvious in retrospect, but it ties everything together. Renaming major geographical features. Demolishing and rebuilding part of the White House. His fixation on the Nobel peace prize. (Note the letter he wrote today to Norway, linking Greenland to not getting the peace prize). Finally, major territorial expansion. Wait, that wasn’t the final one. Undoing the world order that was in place since the world wars. Now that would do it.

He’s seen himself as a world order undoer for quite some time now, perhaps since the beginning of his rise to power. But this, this is his greatest taste of the raw history changing might that has yet been possible. Either get Greenland and change the US map forever. Or be the sole reason for the undoing of NATO. History will never be able to ignore him.

What I don’t know is whether he cares much about whether the historical changes that he will oversee and be forever tied to his name in this ultimate egoic consummation will end up being good for the United States or not. There are obvious downsides to destroying a world order which has been meticulously crafted to put you yourself at the top. But riding the coattails of that world historical success was not fit for a man who’s ego needed to be propelled to similar—no, greater!—historical status.

Narcissism often flares out into the absurd. And we seem well along that track. But just how far it will attempt to go, in this, one of world history’s most consequential cases, remains to be seen. Trump is now a great man of history and we can only wait to see what of our era will survive his grandeur.

Edit: of course, file this for an early contender for the most obvious insight of the year award. I just think it’s a more congruent explanation for the whole set of second term Trump events that we’ve seen than a lot of other explanations I see floating around for recent events.

The real irk here is that it makes him unpredictable in ways that no one can even expect. If you went back to 2024 and told everyone that in the first year alone Trump would start threatening to invade other NATO countries so seriously that they put tripwire troops in Greenland and Canada was looking towards China for diversifying their options, and one of the main motivators is his tantrum over not getting the nobel peace price despite already coercing it out of the actual winner already, even the most insane TDS drones would have looked at you a bit crooked.

If you told people back before the election that the winning candidate was going to try to implement price controls, take state ownership of private enterprise, and blame housing prices on big corporations being too greedy and became phone pals with an unabashed socialist you'd assume it was Harris who won or maybe even that Sanders pulled off a miracle.

And yet here we are.

Okay, this is the second subthread today that makes me think about a certain scottpost.

Wanting to make history is not limited to narcissists. Every kid who thought about being an astronaut has been there. Trump just never had to give up the dream.

I don’t think this actually explains his attitude towards NATO, which is not a new obsession. He’s harped on it since the first term, but it’s always taken a backseat to domestic politics. So I guess I still prefer my model:

Trump makes brand decisions, not strategic ones.

That’s it. There’s no other criteria. Trump wants Greenland because superpowers do stuff like that. He dislikes NATO because he’s convinced it’s a bad deal.

He does not play the long game. He does not eat a loss. He does not implement a strategy. People come to him with proposals, and if they’re aligned with his brand, he gives them whatever they need. If not, he fires them. Trump I was ineffective because he didn’t have the roster depth needed to survive this style. After eight years of setting expectations, the current administration has much more momentum.

The problem with this theory is that a lot of his moves are not even close to insta-wins. Accepting Obama's proposal that Iran is the new American Ally in the Mid East is an insta-win. Instead he went with a complicated Israeli-Saudi led alliance that has only paid off in ways that 9/10 advisors would have told him would fail.

Same happens basically everywhere abroad.

Domestically his successes are more limited, mostly because his power is more limited and media is stronger. If he could just get blue states to cooperate with ICE with a magic wand and proceedings could be expedited, he would be above his February approval ratings. Instead, doing his promises necessarily looks scary. He's got a harder job.

Just tangentially:

Am I wrong, or did Greenland come back into the conversation after nearly a year of absence because a reporter randomly asked Trump about it when he was taking press questions about venezuela two weeks ago? Here on air force one impromptu questioning on Jan 4th, (23:45 timestamp). Trump seems bewildered and is laughing about Greenland being brought up randomly/inappropriately, seemingly out of nowhere (I guess Katie Miller had apparently tweeted a troll stars&stripes greenland 'SOON' picture on Jan 3rd, responding to hemispheric dominance from the 'Donroe doctrine', or the reporter was thinking that same thing independently). But having that seeded back into consciousness, Trump went back to his old line, saying "we need it" rather than "we want it", joked about them beefing up their defense with 1 additional dog-sled, and tried to make his little audience there laugh.

It seems entirely like everyone else earnestly picked that up and ran with it again, and Trump has just continued to respond and not back down (which is always his gut instinct). It doesn't actually seem like this was a huge preoccupation with legacy weighing on his mind this term.

I've mentioned that I still go to yahoo news to see what the daily mainstream normie news aggregate is (to a logged-out american IP), and it appears that ragebait trump-bad-ally greenland stories are pushed every day, usually to the exclusion of anything about minneapolis (or venezuela, more understandably).

This is tangential, but this is why when people say things like "China is smart, they won't just start a war over Taiwan." I laugh. Systems with high power individuals at the top run at the behest of that individual, and this is much more true or China than America. If Russia was smart they would've waited out Ukraine to hollow out demographically and become complacent, but Russia isn't in charge, Putin is and Putin wants to be remembered as the guy who reunited greater Russia. Likewise for Xi, maybe

Systems with high power individuals at the top run at the behest of that individual, and this is much more true or China than America.

Xi seems much brighter than Trump, though.

The question is not whether Xi is brighter than Trump the question is whether Xi is brighter than Putin.

I don't think you're wrong exactly, just that you're trivially correct. Everyone responds to the inevitability of death by thinking about their legacy, whether that's wealth, impact, relationships, or something eternal.

When I consider Trump, I am reminded, actually, of the depiction of Alexander the Great (Iskander) in the anime Fate:Zero. Okay bear with me a sec:

The premise of the series is that legendary heroes of the past are summoned with super powers to fight in a battle royale over the Holy Grail. In Fate: Zero, there's a scene where three legendary kings get together and share a drink while discussing what it means to be a king. It's one of my favorite scenes. Two of the kings, Iskander and Gilgamesh, are basically dunking on King Arthur (who's a woman for some reason) because she's sacrificed so much for her people and is basically miserable and moping all the time. Gilgamesh lays out his belief that he's the best king because he's got the most stuff, but then in an exchange between Arthur and Iskander, our boy explains what he thinks being a king is all about. Here's the key excerpt:

Arthur: If I rule the nation as king, I cannot ask to live as a person. King of Conquerors, you seek the Grail merely for your own benefit. You could never understand - you, who became a ruler only to satisfy your endless greed.

Iskander: A king without greed is even worse than a figurehead! [Arthur], you said you would martyr yourself for your ideals. In life, you must have been a pure saint. A proud and noble figure, certainly. But who can truly admire the martyr's thorny path? Who dreams of such an ending? A king. The king must be greedier than any other. He must laugh more loudly and rage for longer. He must exemplify the extreme of all things, good and evil. That is why his retainers envy and adore him. And why the flames of aspiration, to be as the king is, can burn within his people.

That's what Trump is like, and it's why his retainers adore him. He exemplifies the extreme of all things, and he charges forwards without regret. It's awesome! One more excerpt for good measure:

Arthur: Iskander, your reign ended with your heirs slain, and your empire dissolved into three parts. You have no regrets about that end?

Iskander: None. Not if it came to pass by my judgment and my retainers' sacrifices. Its destruction was inevitable. I shall grieve. And I shall weep. But I shall never regret - let alone undo it! Such an act would be a mockery of all who fought with me!

I think it's a very Western mindset to think our leaders should be more like Arthur, 'servant leaders' so to speak. Trump isn't like that at all, and doesn't pretend to be. He is a goddamn king.

In Fate: Zero, there's a scene where three legendary kings get together and share a drink while discussing what it means to be a king.

Anybody interested in this discussion who reads Cultivation Fantasy should 100% read Virtuous Sons.

They call him a narcissist because they can't stand calling him a Great Man of history, because he obviously is. They're going to call this decade the Trump Era of politics and the beginning of populism dominating the west for decades to come. He's not a boomer selling the house instead of giving it to his kids because he wants to go on cruises: he's a megalomaniac, like Napoleon. He is a man who believes he has a destiny to reshape the world in his image...

...and, based on how history has turned out, is he wrong to believe so? He was radicalized by the bullet shot through his ear. Nothing convinces you more of Providence then surviving death. God himself acts through him, as he did Pharoah: hardening his heart and accomplishing what is necessary for the proper course of history to reassert itself. In short, God is punishing you, and Donald Trump is his scourge. Reflect on your many sins you must have committed for such a sentence to be passed upon you, and repent.

They call him a "Narcissist" because somehow they confused Megalomania with Narcissism, even though they aren't related. Narcissism isn't about how much you think your shit doesn't stink, it's about an inability (or, at least, a diminished capability) of relating to other people except as extentions of one's own ego. Which, to be blunt, is pretty much universal at this point.

Note the letter he wrote today to Norway, linking Greenland to not getting the peace prize

This has to be one of the more stupid things he's done, as any fule kno, the Nobel Prize is Swedish, not Norwegian...

EDIT: Looks like I'm the fule here... I didn't know the Nobel Peace Prize was Norwegian, as all the real ones are done by Sweden... This is good knowledge to have though and yet more reason why the so called Peace Prize should just be discontinued.

In accordance with Nobel's will, the (Nobel Peace) prize is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway unlike all the other awards chosen by the Swedish Nobel Committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

Point taken

Umm…per Wiki the peace prize it is handed out by a Norwegian committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament.

Hm...

Sweden and Norway were united in the 1800s after Sweden took it from the Danes during the Napoleonic wars. Norway was far poorer and far less developed than Sweden and Sweden effectively had to give affirmative action to Norwegians as well as subsidize Norway. When something important and official happened in Sweden Norway had to get a cut. If big prizes were handed out in Stockholm some prize needed to be handed out in Norway.

Is it really 'narcissism' when you are actually that good?

Okay, that's a joke. I mean, he is THAT GOOD, if the talent in question is making everything about himself.

But that also gives him a weak form of Skin in the Game, where he actually DOES want 'good' things to happen since that is precisely what will enable the best legacy for him. It helps that he's seemingly got no real malice as part of his self-aggrandizement (maybe a little, he sure does seem to despise Obama), and generally prefers cooperative outcomes for all involved parties.

If we achieve a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine, and he insists that the Peace agreement be called "Treaty on Russian–Ukrainian Mutual Peace", do I care that much?

No, not really.

My overarching concern has been that his 'movement' is so tied up in his ego it isn't clear if it CAN move on to anyone else once he's out of office, and that will be a major problem if there's no clear successor.

My overarching concern has been that his 'movement' is so tied up in his ego it isn't clear if it CAN move on to anyone else once he's out of office, and that will be a major problem if there's no clear successor.

It's not though, or at least that's not what I see.

Trump is not the center of the MAGA movement as much as he is "the face", this a big part of why he has had a decidedly mixed record when it comes to endorsing other candidates. Trump isn't "wearing the Republican party like skinsuit" so much as he is the brick that the electorate has chosen to throw through the establishment's window.

Additionally I feel like Trump has been actually been pretty good about setting up potential successors for success both within his own family (IE Kushner and Don Jr) and the wider party (IE Vance, and Rubio)

Vance and Rubio, if they continue to play cards right, should be able to form a strong ticket by all accounts.

If Trump does manage a 'clean' handoff of power to one or both of those guys (preferably Vance) that may just be the single best legacy he can leave.

maybe a little, he sure does seem to despise Obama

And Biden, and Clinton, and Comey, and CBS... He spent Christmas ranting about the Democrats!

generally prefers cooperative outcomes for all involved parties.

He put tariffs on the entire rest of the world based the ratio of imports vs exports. And is currently threatening to annex Greenland from our allies and is using tariffs to force them to negotiate.

I saw the list of countries that had tariffs on us, and it suggests that there's a larger strategy of reducing overall trade barriers by forcing everyone else to reduce their own tariffs in the eventual trade deals.

I've talked about this point at some length.

If you haven't figured out that Trump likes to use door in the face in the opening rounds of a negotiation for an eventually agreed deal, don't know what to tell you. Its in that book he wrote.

"Treaty on Russian–Ukrainian Mutual Peace"

I got a chuckle out of this (it took me a second).

My overarching concern has been that his 'movement' is so tied up in his ego it isn't clear if it CAN move on to anyone else once he's out of office, and that will be a major problem if there's no clear successor.

I think this is a huge potential issue, and I will note that it's an issue regardless of whether or not Trump is a good person or a bad person or an evil and vile person or a sort of mediocre person. Strong personalities are not a substitute for strong institutions.

I think it is dangerously tempting for the right to overestimate their victories given that a few strong personalities have swung to their side. Don't get me wrong, it is always good to have great men on your side. But even the best kings pass away.

Yeah. It seems unprecedented in modern history, especially modern American history for a leader to have a sufficiently large cult of personality that when they leave it would be all but impossible for the next candidate to inherit their predecessor's supporters without their explicit blessing.

I guess... North Korea? They solve it by straightforward passing to the next of kin, along with a massive propaganda campaign to deify each successive leader, right?

Actually... I have never questioned it but who is in charge of NK's institution that upholds the Juche ideology and propagandizes the masses? In theory THAT is who is ensuring peaceful transition of power.

Edit: Oh my. Currently its his sister. I guess that tracks.

According to this one (1) singular news report I got in my feed, there's speculation that his daughter, Kim Ju Ae, is being positioned as the successor because she "walked in front of Kim Jung Un on camera."

Kremlinology, Pyongyang-style!

I question the degree to which Trump has the ability to bequeath his support to a chosen successor. He's had mixed success as an endorser of candidates. Especially if he is himself diminished in any way.

Yeah, hence why an institution that can try to build up the next candidate to receive the blessing seems like a necessary component.

Trump himself is popular amongst people who voted for him, I expect that to remain true.

Nominally this would be a job for the Republican Party apparatus but lol.

It's not exactly new or surprising that a head-of-state would have a big ego and ambition to leave a legacy. One might even say that's the norm. The constitution was explicitly designed with this in mind, with the hope that each separate branch of government would, by trying to seize more power for itself, keep the others in check.

What is new is how... useless Congress has become. In theory they have immense power. They could remove the president from office, fully control government spending, and even rewrite the constitution as they please. But in practice they just can't seem to agree on anything. They can barely even pass routine budgets to keep federal services running.

At the same time, social media has given the President more power than ever with his "bully pulpit." We can now directly watch all of Trump's speeches at the click of a button, or read his thoughts in short tweet form. And Trump is very effective at that kind of short-form communication. The rest of government is too fractured and, frankly, boring, to grab people's attention the way Trump can. It'll be interesting to see if this continues- somehow I can't imagine people tuning in to watch Vance or Shapiro with the same sort of horrified excitement they give to Trump. But we'll see- I suppose any speech becomes more interesting when it's backed up by immense power.

Regarding NATO, it's sort of a similar argument. Europe has, in theory, a lot of military power, but it's difficult to really use it when it's fractured between 31 different non-US members. What I would like to see is for continental Europe to form a new "Core NATO" with a centralized European Army, focused entirely on defending Europe. The US could either leave NATO or minimize its involvement there, and instead focus on AUKUS, potentially expanding it to include Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. This would be a smaller, but more tightly knit alliance, aimed at being able to project force all over the world, but especially at sea and even more especially in East Asia. Since this alliance is smaller and more closely aligned, it would have a lot more cohesion and flexibility to forcefully defend its (narrowly defined) strategic interests- peace in the middle east, counter-terrorism, and containing China and Russia.

Yeah, but... how is that news? Trump having a massive ego is something everyone who took one look at the guy can tell. What's more I don't know if it can be any other way for someone in his position. Years ago I was watching one of Ethan van Sciver's streams (an ex-DC Comics guy for the unfamiliar), and he got into some drama with some indie guy from Brazil. The Brazilian guy posted something on Twitter to the effect of that he's making the best comic book in the history of the world, and when the stream audience saw that, superchats started rolling in taking the piss out of the guy. Funnily enough van Sciver came to his defense, he said "You guys don't get it, he's doing it right. You need to have a massive ego in this field, because if you don't, the amount of negative feedback you get will make you crumble". If this is true for comic book artists, I really don't see how it can be any other way for politicians.

You could try to argue that his particular brand of narcissism is particularly destructive for a world leader, but is it really that unique? Was Angela Merkel bringing over ~1.5 million Syrians and Afghans, and brushing off all concerns with a mere "we'll manage it" all that different?

I really don't see how it can be any other way for politicians.

Case in point:

Angela Merkel bringing over ~1.5 million Syrians and Afghans

I was mostly not a fan of Merkel during her 16 years. Before the refugee thing, she did not have any policies she believed in apart from "I should be the chancellor". Spineless, always following the prevailing winds. The people want to get rid of nuclear because Fukoshima? Let's get rid of nuclear.

(Her stance on the refugees was different from that. Apart from the first order effects of letting in a lot of brown people, the fact that she did this while being the head of the CDU also permanently empowered the far-right AfD, a long term effect I personally find far more concerning.)

Of course all politicians have a strong ego, but I do not think hers was pathological. I can not imagine Merkel watching the Tagesschau, noticing that she was not mentioned once, and deciding to do something about it. She knew what she had achieved: starting out as the pastor's daughter (not exactly high society, especially not in East Germany), studying physics, then joining the CDU after the '89 revolution. Starting out as Kohl's Quotenfrau and Quoten-Ossi (affirmative action woman and East-German), she climbed to the top of the CDU (a backstabbing hive of scum and villainy if there ever was one, and certainly not one believing in female empowerment), and managed to keep on top of them (and in power) for an impressive amount of time.

My feeling is that she was quite happy with her achievements, not that she was obsessively comparing herself to her predecessors and found herself wanting because Kohl had one more unification under his belt or Schroeder had more invitations to Moscow or whatever.

To be a bit more blunt, while she was much and viciously ridiculed for being a non-feminine woman, with Merkel I do not get the feeling that she was in politics to compensate for some perceived inadequacy.

I mean, if I was Trump and comparing myself to Obama, I would have plenty to feel inadequate about. Unlike Trump, Obama was not exactly born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Where Trump has a BS from UPenn, Obama has a doctorate from Harvard Law. Obama followed a standard cursus honorum from state legislature to US senate to presidency. Trump basically won the presidency through his willingness to engage in the Birther conspiracy and through being correctly perceived by his proletarian supporters as the candidate who would piss off the establishment the most. It does not matter who your voters are for getting elected president, as each vote counts the same (at least within a district, otherwise it's terribly messy), but for the amount of respect you earn from the upper-middle class for your victory it matters a lot.

Of all the honors Obama received, the Nobel is the one he deserved least, and one of the weakest Nobels awarded. He basically got a Nobel simply for not being George W Bush. Well, Trump always had an additional 15 years of not being GWB on Obama, so it surely stands to reason that he should get a Nobel too, no?

Sadly, Trump severely lacks awareness of how the mind of the Nobel committee works. The way he got into politics is the first point against him. His general style is the second. From his tweets to him renaming the DoD to DoW, he is not even fulfilling European expectations for how a meh US president should behave, never mind the expectations for one deserving the Nobel. At this point, he would have to persuade the Middle East to live in harmony and friendship, negotiate with Russia and China for a treaty which reduces nuclear weapon stockpiles by 90% and be hailed as 'The Peacebringer' by archangels (or equivalent) representing at least three world religions before he had a shot at getting his own instead of a hand-me-down like Goebbels or Infantino's sad participation trophy.

Yeah, but... how is that news? Trump having a massive ego is something everyone who took one look at the guy has a massive ego

Agreed. I'm a big fan of Trump, but obviously the guy has some issues with grandiosity (probably he would admit as much).

I do think it's silly to push for Greenland but so far, I'd rather have that than have someone who supports things like hiring unqualified air traffic controllers in order to promote a woke racial agenda.

I think the framing of “Greenland or NATO” is interesting.

It seem plausible, if not probable, that the administration wants to end NATO. Or at least wouldn’t be sad to see nato go. It’s certainly a high risk gambit, but I don’t think I’m totally against ending nato.

I’ve long felt our European allies have been pretty terrible friends for my entire life. Their biggest sin was getting involved in internal USA party politics. It’s clear that they have a common vision with establishment Democrats and are actively hostile to the political goals of MAGA. They’ve been interfering with our elections since at least 2020. If Harris had won, I have no doubt that the EU would have done everything it can to destroy Elon Musk and X.

I think the Trump administration has recognized that we’re in a multi-polar world. The plan is to retrench to the Americas. I don’t see how nato fits into that. Especially if we have Greenland.

Edit:

Two threads below this:

Amelia is a supporting character in the U.K. government-funded educational visual novel Pathways, a game developed by Shout Out UK to teach the youth about extremism and radicalization. In the game, Amelia is depicted as a far-right anti-immigration activist with purple hair, a pink dress, a purple sweater and a goth or e-girl appearance, who tries persuading the protagonist to join her cause.

I don’t know how we can work with an “ally” that does this. This is just one drop in an ocean of shit that comes from our “friends” in Europe and the anglosphere. Even if you believe (the likely true) theory that European countries are just branch offices of US deep state, I don’t see why we should allow them to share resources.

This is a much more salient problem for me than Russia and China.

I don’t know how we can work with an “ally” that does this. This is just one drop in an ocean of shit that comes from our “friends” in Europe and the anglosphere.

The only reason anyone in Europe has ever done this is because America spent the entire post-war period enforcing it on Europe.

You invented all these shenangians and in a few years, once the Republicans lose, you'll jump straight back into it.

The benefit to the increasing divide between the USA and Europe is that soon Europe will be able to publicly partner far more with China, who has never cared how racist their business partners are, so long as they are stable. No Chinese ever called me Whitey.

We are in agreement.

No Chinese ever called me Whitey.

They definitely do, but they do it in Mandarin, which they are certain you will never understand.

Baizou is an all timer as far as I’m concerned. It’s been like ten years since I first heard the term and it’s basically a perfect slur. No notes.

I have two problems with this line of thinking:

  1. A president wishing to protect their legacy is not a novel insight. Anyone who makes it to the position wants to do that. Being an old man in a second term may magnify this need but most actions taken by most presidents should be assumed to be with the goal in mind.

  2. Trump isn't really a narcissist. I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the (thankfully mostly private) way medical and psychological professionals will throw the diagnosis around. He can't really meet the "formal" criteria because of things like "yes he is actually one of the most important people in the world" and a hopelessly obscured life history.

In terms of informal criteria, Trump has been the victim of so many bad faith attacks, lies, insults, slanders, and true criticisms that if he was at all vulnerable to narcissistic injury he would have gone away or broken down long ago.

Narcissism is superficially described by arrogance but is better described by insecurity. The first hand accounts of Trump I know do describe an amount of insecurity, but certainly not to an excess.

His ability to function makes an NPD diagnosis unlikely, furthermore his ability to attack and frustrate his opponents indicates a sufficient theory of mind to make NPD unlikely.

As a additional matter:

People who know Trump very well will state that while he may be conceited, he legitimately is interested in doing what is best for the American people, especially if it improves his legacy. He just does it in a chaotic way because he is not a politician and does not have an expert level intellectual background in the things he is working on.

if he was at all vulnerable to narcissistic injury he would have gone away or broken down long ago

Trump has broken down. He has a public meltdown like three times a week. I don't know how you can look at his behavior and conclude that this is a guy who has his shit together. The man just wrote a public* angry letter to the PM of Norway because he's mad about the Nobel prize committee (which doesn't work for the Norwegian government) and Greenland (which is part of a different country).

he legitimately is interested in doing what is best for the American people

I really don't see any evidence for this. If people close to him are saying that, it's probably because it's in their interest to present Trump as well-intentioned rather than vindictive and corrupt. Trump has consistently prioritized his own interests, power, and obsessions over the interests of America. The Greenland Crisis is just the latest example of this.

The best argument one could make to sustain the idea that Trump is acting in good faith is that he's just a moron. And in fairness, there's good reason to think that (though being a moron doesn't preclude corrupt intent). He doesn't just lack an expert-level intellectual background in the things he is working - something he has in common with the vast majority of presidents - he lacks basic intellectual curiosity and common sense (see, e.g. his preposterous understanding of trade deficits) and has a zero-sum understanding of the world.

*correction: He sent a completely unhinged private letter which only an idiot would not expect to be shared immediately

I implore you to try and model him as a real person as opposed to a stereotyped figure of hatred. He has human moments, motivations.

He is famous for actively soliciting feedback and information from EVERYBODY even when it's ill advised and he shouldn't listen, this gets painted as "whoever talked to him last" in the media but their is tremendous value to that.

I know several people who have run into him in his golf clubs and he usually asks what they think about it, actually listens, and appears to provide some consideration if they have something meaningful to say.

He is a person doing a hard job without the background that is usually required to do well.

Does he have character flaws? Everyone who is president does. Some people are worse than others, but:

Don't lose track of the fact that he is a real person and some not some poorly written Saturday morning cartoon.

I implore you to try and model him as a real person as opposed to a stereotyped figure of hatred. He has human moments, motivations.

Not Skibboleth, but this seems bit in bad faith --- I am not equipped to make diagnoses, but I certainly have met real people who are to first approximation modeled as vindictive and prone to tantrums. I won't try to analyze Trump's behavior deeply here, just saying such description can match a real peson.

I know several people who have run into him in his golf clubs and he usually asks what they think about it, actually listens, and appears to provide some consideration if they have something meaningful to say.

Most people report similar experiences after meeting most politicians and other sufficiently charismatic people. Because that's what charisma often is. Some people have met "lite" versions of such charismatic persons. Super nice person who actually listens, is very sympathetic, sounds someone you would like to hang around with ... except when when you stop and compare notes with other people, and reflect on your past interactions with this person, it becomes obvious that they shit-talk other people, does come through only when it is for their immediate benefit, generally act in self-serving manner, have always a plan who to throw under the bus when a project fails due to their failings? (that was my first $big_corp line manager --- I have since left the company, I hear his career is going okay. He also never threw tantrums).

I implore you to consider that not all analysis of Trump's behavior are driven by hatred. Like, his letter to Norwegian PM has been published, and apparently is a genuine real deal. It is a very weird thing to read. (Well, so were all his tweets, too, but I suppose I have become desensitized by now).

I implore you to consider that not all analysis of Trump's behavior are driven by hatred.

My assertion is that I have yet to really see any anti-Trump writing that acknowledges him as a complete person, pretty much everything I've seen for ten years now has been exaggeration and stereotyping of his worse attributes and behaviors.

A much, much less lower bar ("say anything nice about Trump at all") has never been cleared by anyone I've interacted with in real life and rarely here.

I disagree with your characterization of charisma but more importantly the aforementioned behavior has been well known and noted by neutral and positive coverage since before he jumped into politics.

Either you ignore it because of Trump hatred, or (more likely) you haven't dug into who the guy is a person, which does a much better job of explaining his beliefs and behavior.*

Private knowledge tells me that Obama is a shitty overly permissive parent and that Bush did a bunch of coke when he was younger, but you don't need to be clued in to know that Clinton got up to shitty stuff with women or that Obama is destructively competitive. These are the most important people in the world and the unbiased information about how they actually function is out in the world.

Related: almost zero moderate to low information Democrats I know are aware of Trump's attitude towards drugs and alcohol despite this being an important part of his character, in fact most people assume they are the opposite of the truth.

Private knowledge tells me that Obama is a shitty overly permissive parent and that Bush did a bunch of coke when he was younger, but you don't need to be clued in to know that Clinton got up to shitty stuff with women or that Obama is destructively competitive. These are the most important people in the world and the unbiased information about how they actually function is out in the world.

Please do realize you just posted a collection random smears about Obama and Bush. While they may be true, they are not characterization of their personality or charisma. Like, trump is certainly famous for his own moral failings on infidelity and lack of decorum concerning women. But concerning charisma, Obama was very charismatic on tv --- exactly the person a blue-coded voter would like to hang out with. Bush projected a cowboy rancher persona, which worked for him but resulted in blue-coded people liking to call him a slow, idiot, moron and projecting conspiracy theories that he was really puppeted by Cheney, which was absurd).

My assertion is that I have yet to really see any anti-Trump writing that acknowledges him as a complete person, pretty much everything I've seen for ten years now has been exaggeration and stereotyping of his worse attributes and behaviors.

A much, much less lower bar ("say anything nice about Trump at all") has never been cleared by anyone I've interacted with in real life and rarely here.

Okay. But if you are arguing against such amorphous blob of writing you dislike, you are not really engaging in an argument with us in this forum thread.

e. P.S.

Concerning this aspect in particular: You say you reject my characterization of charisma. Sure, it was not all-encompassing definition. But do you reject that person I tried to describe exist? I recounted it because I found Skibbolet's description not exceedingly uncommon, a plausible theory of mind real people can maintain about other real people, in opposition to your claim that other interlocutors in this discussion are not modelling Trump as a real person. You have also neither touched on his letter to Norwegian PM.

I picked one person from each side of the aisle to make it clear it wasn't partisan, and your approach seems more "gotcha" oriented than anything, between that and a hidden profile I think I'm going to exit this one.

Cheers!

For the record, MAGA dislikes both Bush and Clinton, so it is not really very convincing attempt at non-partisanship. I also admit I don't really understand the point you were trying to make recounting anecdotes of them, either.

It is certainly your prerogative not to engage, I do that all the time when I lose interest in discussion threads here. However, I am befuddled why you posted any replies to my replies if you don't want to have an argument about what I wrote. Dunno if it counts a "gotcha".

More comments

My assertion is that I have yet to really see any anti-Trump writing that acknowledges him as a complete person, pretty much everything I've seen for ten years now has been exaggeration and stereotyping of his worse attributes and behaviors.

A much, much less lower bar ("say anything nice about Trump at all") has never been cleared by anyone I've interacted with in real life and rarely here.

As someone who thinks Trump is decidedly less virtuous than average, I can actually think of fair few nice things to say about him: he seems quite forgiving, he can be generous with praise, he's got a sense of humour etc.

Oh yeah many people here can do this if directly prompted, which is why I made it about people I know in real life. Too many people here will jump in on the discussion (big enough forum and people will get to it) or just say something to score points.

Likewise I'm sure with direct prompting people can do what I ask, but the baseline level on the internet is "Trump will cancel the elections" which is...not great understanding.

Likewise I'm sure with direct prompting people can do what I ask, but the baseline level on the internet is "Trump will cancel the elections" which is...not great understanding.

Well I can report nobody has claimed "Trump will cancel the elections" in this discussion here, yet. We have one complaint this far that Europeans interfere with the US elections, however

The man just wrote a public angry letter to the PM of Norway because he's mad about the Nobel prize committee

It was not a public letter, unless there was another letter I was unfamiliar with.

I'll let you argue the point with other people who have a stronger opinion on what textbook narcissism is.

Personally, I don't really think it matters (except possibly for his personal well-being) - his behavior is either good or bad, helpful or unhelpful, honorable or dishonorable, etc. Whether or not he meets some diagnostic criteria is of secondary importance. I don't, for the record, tend to agree with a lot of the way he's handled the Greenland affair.

But I also think most people forget Ellsberg's warning to Kissinger:

you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn’t, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn’t even guess.

But of course there's a caution there not only for the outsider (us, or most of us I reckon), but also for the insider:

The danger is, you’ll become something like a moron. You’ll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours.

He's legitimately interested in what's doing what is best for the American people insofar as he and his also make a buck.

He's got a mafioso approach towards politics and economics. "What's in it for me?" "Are you loyal above all else?" He automatically respects other leaders with the same instincts. That's why he's got an authoritarian streak, but he's not actually a tyrant. He can be extremely forgiving, if one bends the knee to his satisfaction.

Politicians as a class of human beings are pretty obviously suffering from high rates of narcissism, even if you think a lot of it is subclinical.

Trump and his obsession with e.g. the Nobel Prize, throwing his name/image on all kinds of governmental things, or election results (he always wins by a landslide in his head) make it pretty clearly clinical. He's a standout among politicians for narcissism. A true generational talent.

"What's in it for me?" "Are you loyal above all else?" He automatically respects other leaders with the same instincts. That's why he's got an authoritarian streak, but he's not actually a tyrant. He can be extremely forgiving, if one bends the knee to his satisfaction.

Coincidentally, you can relate this to how Locke defines a ruler tyrannical: he who rules not by law but uses power "for his own, private, separate advantage" and "makes not the law, but his will, the rule". One could try make the case Trump's will is directed to the preservation of the properties of the US citizens, which remains to be seen, but a ruler who judges people not by their actions or character or other principle but strict quid pro quo basis would be anathema to Locke.

Similarly, in Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu argues that wheras republican forms of government springs from the citizens' virtue and monarchical government requires honor (as in, aristocratic titles and behaviors) despotic government requires (according to M.) fear, of losing the favor the despot. Now Montesquieu is not a big fan of despotism, but one could argue that professions of gratitude and loyalty are the flip side of the same coin as fear.

Politicians as a class of human beings are pretty obviously suffering from high rates of narcissism, even if you think a lot of it is subclinical.

Arrogance isn't narcissism, and the former is likely in part required to be a politician. The latter requires actually understanding the motivations of someone which in most cases is going to require a personal relationship or types of interactions that are incompatible with politics.

You'll note that most people who believe Trump is a narcissist already do not like Trump, and most people who like him don't believe he's a narcissist.

Analysis of this is hopelessly mired by political inclinations and fundamentally low quality news coverage.

It's pretty obvious what Trump is doing with Greenland for instance but you'd never guess that from social media and most mainstream media coverage.

At this point, I just use statements of "Trump is a narcissist" or "Trump doesn't understand basic economics" as revelatory of someone who simply isn't fit to be a political actor. Intelligent criticisms of Trump exist; "muh corruption" [which is what happens when social privilege runs into an institution that refuses to respect it] is not one of those.

People saying "not a politician" usually have a better understanding of it, but I think the best understanding is that Trump actually bothers to include the nation in the political process, and the nation is not used to that nor are they ready for it, so they don't react well.

This also extends to people in other nations reacting to Trump, which hamstrings their response: they reflexively vote for conservatives who promise maximum hostility, but aren't capable of evaluating their own economic or strategic position [or that of their immediate neighbors]. This is also D criticism of Trump in a nutshell, for just as negotiations are proposed publicly, they also fail just as publicly (re: China's current strategic retaliation).

The fact Trump is calling the public of those nations directly out on international media, rather than their king(s) in private, is itself enough of a culture shock to send them searching psychology textbooks for answers. But again, it's their worldview that is wrong: European countries are American provinces and have been ever since their invasion force hit the Continent the morning of June 6, 1944.

Usually the public is included in the political process by the legislature, but that hasn't been meaningful for a long time thanks to 51/49 effects which provoke a tendency to never do anything lest that hurt voter turnout (thus the need to hold policy goals hostage- abortion rights, same sex marriage rights, gun rights, industry rights [as a tax or penalty of $0 for disobeying the bureaucracy comes right back if the relevant actors don't vote for politicians that promise it stays gone], etc.). This is arguably just as relevant for D as it is for R.

European countries are American provinces and have been ever since their invasion force hit the Continent the morning of June 6, 1944.

While you are not totally wrong, I think that this is an oversimplification. The deal the US offered in Europe and Asia after WW2 was mutually beneficial, and a lot of countries took you up on it. However, this is based on soft power. You do not own Europe like China owns Tibet.

If you want an analogy, think of the British Commonwealth. Canada is part of it, which means that King Charles is their head of state. But it is (even more than America's NATO) based on soft power. The minute King Charles or Starmer make a hard power move, e.g. try to to take direct control of the Canadian navy or Nunavut, they will learn to their peril that hard power and soft power are different things and Canada can actually function very fine without a British monarch at the top.

I essentially agree with you, but I doubt it has much to do with his own mortality, he has simply always been this way. He has always emblazoned his name in giant gold letters on skyscrapers, it's just kind of who he is. I think now that we are halfway through his final term it is obvious that he won't be able to remake American society wholesale and his enemies will always hate him, there is no changing either of those things. So like you said, I think he seeks to emblazon his name on world history. If the USA acquired Greenland his name would certainly be indelibly written into the history books, I don't think there is much of grand strategy angle to it. Most of this stuff seems relatively harmless, and frankly it's potentially a good thing for a US President to have a strong drive to be considered great.

This not his “final term”. Somehow he will be in power in 2028. Either directly through a dictatorship or more likely his puppet will be in the white house. Whether it’s President Vance or President Donnie Jr the real power is still going to be Donnie Sr.

You don’t need to sit on the Iron Throne to wield the Iron Throne. My personal preference is just elect Donnie Jr. but Jr stays in the background.

Somehow he will be in power in 2028.

Yes he will — and for the first 19.5 days of 2029 too!

I'm not MAGA, but if I were, I'd think it was probably time to use the 25th Amendment to get President Vance.

Obviously, that's not gonna happen.

(I also thought the GOP should have been fine removing Trump last time to get President Pence. And the same for Biden and Kamala. No one listens to my great ideas.)

You had this correct when you said you are not MAGA (whatever that means).

We are talking about more terms not the final term.

Post lobotomy Jill Biden will have more ability than Kamala Harris on her best day. Harris is not cut of leadership clot.

There are two core problems:

  1. MAGA is a distinctively fanatical cult of personality. I suspect senior Republicans believe (probably correctly) that if they yeet Trump, his rabid base will turn on them in punishment for betraying their god-king. Even if they don't, there's a noted swathe of Trump supporters who don't show up for anyone but Trump himself. So getting rid of Trump leaves them in the awkward spot of being deserted by Trump's low-prop voters while being known to the rest of the electorate as the cowards who could have stopped the madness at any time but didn't.
  2. Trump's cabinet has no reason to want to get rid of him. It's no skin off their back if Trump destroys the country (some of them appear to be actively for it), and in the mean time, far better to be whispering in the ear of the Mad King than JD Vance, who appears to have his own ideas.

Basically, getting rid of Trump would be an act of selfless, patriotic self-sacrifice that the modern GOP is incapable of.

The liberal media narrative about how Trump is this huge narcist who wants to surround himself with a bunch of sycophantic yes-men but he's just such a poor judge of character that he keeps hiring habitual contrarians and competitive alpha-dog types (Mattis, Bannon, Flynn, Rubio, Vance, Et Al) entirely by mistake will never not be funny to me.

Basically, getting rid of Trump would be an act of selfless, patriotic self-sacrifice that the modern GOP is incapable of.

You could say the same thing about the democrats and Biden.

Not really. While it was undoubtedly an act of grotesque malfeasance and selfishness to hide Biden's state, even if we grant the most pessimistic assessments of Biden, he wasn't nearly as far gone nor as overtly harmful to the nation. One could quite reasonably conclude that Joe Biden's cabinet plus four hours a day of Joe Biden was a reasonable choice compared to the alternatives.

By contrast, with Mad King Donald and his cabinet of villains and Marco Rubio, almost any plausible alternative would be better (though JD Vance might be one of the only steps down).

The Dems just got done puppeting a diaper-shitting corpse through the presidency while nobody bought it and people laughed at them, until the old fart finally started dissociating and dribbling so badly in public that he had to be forced out of his own reelection campaign in disgrace.

I know Dumbo Drumpf is Mega Hitler because he wants Mexicans to live in Mexico, etc. etc. etc. and that finding new ways to say it after all this time has to be really hard, but maybe find a way to do it that doesn't so directly contrast with the opposition's most ludicrous failure in modern history.

You and @Skibboleth (who are so similar in posting styles that it's not surprising I often confuse your usernames and forget who's the low-effort sneering rightie and who's the low-effort sneering leftie- like seriously, even your mod logs are almost identical):

Shall we just resort to "libtard" and "republithug" now? How about "Magtard" and "shitlib"? Go ahead, bring out all your best disses that really killed it on Twitter in 2016.

No, actually, don't. Go elsewhere for pistols at dawn, or get a room, or whatever, but knock this crap off. Neither of you will be a loss if I just say "Pox on the both of you."

Shall we just resort to "libtard" and "republithug" now?

I mean I'm down if he is, I feel like he's getting the short end of the stick as far as epithets go.

I'm genuinely curious, in what way do you think JD Vance would be a step down? I'm assuming you are somewhat inclined towards preserving elements of the status quo given your posts. Do you believe Vance would be more destructive? More impulsive? What is the main concern?

I ask because I've seen this sort of addendum tacked on to a lot of statements about Trump across the internet, but I've yet to hear what specifically is so much worse about Vance.

  • JD Vance is associated with the tech right, which is explicitly pro-oligarchy and pro-authoritarianism and more abstractly seems to be pro-dystopia
  • JD Vance isn't insane. One of the saving graces of Trump's kakistocracy is that he's a decrepit idiot with a short attention span, and his inner circle is more concerned with grifting or pushing their own personal agendas. This is still very bad, but it has undermined the GOP's push towards American Orbanism.
  • JD Vance is much more willing to overtly entertain the fascistic elements of the far-right. Trump is a huge bigot, but I do not get the impression that he has much of an ideological framework, racial or otherwise.

The bear case for JD Vance is that he becomes the front man for a movement that much more smartly pursues authoritarianism and consolidates power while creating the cyberpunk hellscape William Gibson warned us about (but lamer). Combine this with Vance's apparent desire to destabilize global security for... unclear reasons and I think the implications for both the United States and the world are potentially significantly worse than many possible Trump adminstrations.

The bull case for JD Vance is that he's too weak to actually marshal any political support on his own and gets immediately sidelined. The tech right embarrassed itself right out the gate, and brings very little actual popular support to the table.

Personally, being of the Luddite persuasion, the element of the MAGA tent which I most dislike is the Thiel/Musk tech right clique, of which Vance appears to be an agent. I'd much rather be governed by woke moral busybodies or Trumpist kleptocrats than by gay space fascists. Ideally I would like none of these clowns to govern the USA, but that appears to be too much to ask for. (I don't live in the US myself, but I'm afraid my own position is not much better.)

While it was undoubtedly an act of grotesque malfeasance to hide Biden's state, even if we grant the most pessimistic assessments of Biden, he wasn't nearly as far gone nor as overtly harmful to the nation

Biden was indisputably further gone. You may have preferred his admin's governance, but he wasn't capable of putting complete sentences together.

The most important difference seems like it is that Biden didn't actually wield power anymore. It is probably not desirable that the US President is basically fully managed by their staff (who, actually, was in charge in 2024?), but this is a much different problem than if your President is crazy and potent... personally, I find the latter worse but I am much more ideologically opposed to Trump even though I loathed Biden's presidency.

I don't think Trump's sentences are any more coherent than Biden's were, he's just more forceful about them and comes across as less physically fragile.

Trump rambles and sometimes jumps erratically between different trains of thought but whichever token he's outputting at sentence position n usually bears at least some relation to token_n-3. Biden during the 2024 debates was much worse.

For what it's worth I think peak Biden was probably smarter than peak Trump.

The two flavors of senility: fading into the background, and using anger to cover up not really understanding what's going on. Avoid saying anything coherent so nobody can tell that you couldn't hear what anyone said, or insist angrily that you are correct and force everyone around you to accommodate because it's awkward to tell grandpa he's wrong.

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