site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34121 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not CW as such, just that the Harris campaign keeps on giving us little nuggets of joy.

According to Josh Shapiro, she didn't reject him, he rejected her, so there! Also allegations that the vetting process for potential VP involved asking if he was an Israeli agent or something. Duelling memoirs!

I don't know if he's ticked off that she passed over him for Walz, or if he's glad to have gotten out before the disaster campaign and is just rubbing it in, or if this is just revenge for hurt feelings and maybe the way she wrote about him in her memoir of the campaign, but it feels like scores being settled.

In Mr. Shapiro’s book, “Where We Keep the Light,” the governor is measured in describing his interactions with Ms. Harris herself. But Mr. Shapiro, who is Jewish, details a contentious vetting process in which Ms. Harris’s team focused intensely on his views on Israel — so much so that at one point, he wrote, he was asked if he had ever been an agent of the Israeli government.

...As he tells it, he also had reservations about the vice-presidential search process from the start, and says that he ultimately decided to withdraw himself, after meeting with Ms. Harris at the end of the process. He asked to be connected with Ms. Harris to share the decision, he wrote, but says he was told “the VP would not handle bad news well and that I shouldn’t push.”

Having read the memoir, I can well believe that she would scream at her staff for daring to deliver any bad news. But this does contradict Harris' account of the selection process, where there's a distinct impression left that she thought him a bit too big for his boots (and poor Hubby yet again makes the wrong choice):

Storm had picked him up from the parking lot of an elementary school in Glover Park. At the last minute, Storm had traded her Jeep for a vehicle with tinted windows, since discretion in this process was so important to us. Josh went to get in the front seat, but Storm instructed that he needed to be in the back, so he could duck and not been seen. She thought he seemed a little disappointed by that.

When he learned she was the residence manager, he peppered her with questions about the house, from the number of bedrooms to how he might arrange to get Pennsylvania artists’ work on loan from the Smithsonian.

In our meeting he was, as always, poised, polished, and personable.

…Josh had been elected governor in 2022 and was popular in a state with nineteen electoral votes that we badly needed to win. We talked about how to handle the attacks he’d confronted on Gaza and what effect it might have on the enthusiasm we were trying to build. Big protests at the convention were a major concern. As a student, he’d written an op-ed stating that peace with Palestinians was impossible, and this decades-old article had been dragged out to smear him as “Genocide Josh.” He said he felt he’d been able to deal with critics by stating clearly that his youthful opinion had been misguided and that he was fully committed to a two-state solution. He had also publicly called Netanyahu “one of the worst leaders of all time.”

I asked him if he understood the job of vice president. “Because if you do, you’ll be good at it and our administration will be strong.”

He peppered me with questions, trying to nail down, in detail, what role I saw for my VP. At one point, he mused that he would want to be in the room for every decision. I told him bluntly that was an unrealistic expectation. A vice president is not a copresident. I had a nagging concern that he would be unable to settle for a role as number two and that it would wear on our partnership. I had to be able to completely trust the person in that role.

“Every day as president,” I said, “I’ll have ninety-nine problems, and my VP can’t be one.”

Apart from apprehensions for myself, I was also concerned for him. I thought his frustrations with the job might impact his performance in the role. And why take an effective Democratic governor out of a job he liked and was good at? But could I afford to turn my back on such a talented political athlete in such a critical state? Josh assured me he’d do everything to help me win Pennsylvania whether I chose him or not, “because this is the most important election we’ve faced.”

I had time to hash out these thoughts in a debrief with my team. Meanwhile, Storm returned Josh to the pickup location. Storm instructed the state trooper who was arranging transport on an alternate route that would avoid driving by the vice president’s residence on Massachusetts Avenue. She assumed that the press would notice official vehicles with Pennsylvania plates. She was disappointed, ten minutes later, to see those very cars on CNN, cruising right by the residence. That lack of discretion did not play well with her.

…When Kelly left, I got on a Zoom call with the selection committee and my chosen committee of advisers: Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, former Congressman Cedric Richmond, and Tony West. We reviewed what we’d heard from each of these exceptional men and weighed the pros and cons. Their concerns were how adeptly and passionately each of them would defend me. In short, who would be most loyal and effective at the job. The ambition must be for the job, not for the political future beyond.

…Doug and I went back and forth. He had known Josh longer and leaned that way.

…By the time I went to bed, I’d decided on Walz.

Seems there was just the tiniest smidgeon of non-agreement there:

“Her accounts are just blatant lies,” Mr. Shapiro told The Atlantic last year.

In his book, he acknowledged — more diplomatically — that he and Ms. Harris saw the role differently.

...When he returned home, he wrote, his teenage son observed, “It doesn’t seem like you want to do it.” Soon after, he wrote, he tried to communicate that view to Ms. Harris’s team.

This is after Harris saying she dumped him but he probably wanted it to sound like he dumped her:

My next job was to quickly contact Josh and Mark. The news had already started to leak, and they should hear this from me, not the media. Dana Remus later let me know that Josh had been trying to reach me earlier that morning. The only reason I could imagine for him calling was that he’d intuited he wouldn’t be the choice and wanted to withdraw first, so it would be seen as his decision. But nothing was said about that, and he graciously offered to introduce us in Philly.

Just imagine what we were deprived of by Trump's victory. Four glorious years of President Harris and Vice-President Shapiro elbowing each other off the stage as they tried to grab attention for "I'm doing this"/"No, I'm doing this"/"I'm the President, it's my job!"/"Yeah well don't be greedy, you're always hogging the limelight, I have a job too"/"Your job is when I say 'jump' you say 'how high' and don't forget it, Philly boy"/"See if you're still saying that in 2028, Willy's Girl!"

Mr. Shapiro, who is Jewish

Likely not the NYT author’s intention—but the sudden emphasis there that Shapiro is Jewish made me chuckle, especially given the stereotype of Shapiro being a Jewish surname.

Josh went to get in the front seat, but Storm instructed that he needed to be in the back, so he could duck and not been seen. She thought he seemed a little disappointed by that.

This is like a reversal of the Curb Your Enthusiasm skit performed by Mr. David and Mr. Stiller, who are also Jewish.

Sudden emphasis? Shapiro's entire campaign for governor was built around ads of him eating shabbat dinner with his family, wearing a yarmulke, going to synagogue.

It was so weirdly prominent I was convinced he was just trying to bait his opponent, who was insane, into calling him Jew Boy and ending the race right there.

If it weren’t sufficiently clear, the top half of my comment was about the NYT author’s way of informing the reader that Shapiro is Jewish and not about Shapiro’s Jewishness itself. The extent to which Shapiro publicly expressed or expresses his Jewishness is orthogonal.

the stereotype of Shapiro being a Jewish surname

It's not a stereotype.

What the hell kind of name is "Storm"

I know! But it's a genuine name, comes from Norwegian ancestry (so she and Tim had something in common to discuss):

She picked up Minnesota Governor Tim Walz from a nearby dog park. He was amused by the cloak-and-dagger shenanigans. On the drive, they talked about her Norwegian background—his state has a large Norwegian community—and when he arrived, he seemed touched that Storm had his preferred beverage, Diet Mountain Dew, on the table ready for him.

When I started reading this book, I wasn't too impressed. But now I love it. It's full to the brim of all these little plums!

What the hell kind of name is "Storm"

I know! But it's a genuine name, comes from Norwegian ancestry

I wonder did Tim Minchin know that?

Storm Horncastle. She appears to be Norwegian; not an adopted name.

No, I'm sorry, miss, we're deporting you back to whatever fantasy fanfic you crawled out of.

"Your ICE magic has no effect on me, a daughter of the North!"

"Do not cite the Hart-Celler Act to me witch. I was there when it was written."

Man I've met Shapiro and I can't bring myself to read these obligatory political memoirs. There's something downright bizarre about an Irish lass playing Real Housewives with them.

I gritted my teeth and got the Harris book because I wanted to see her take on the campaign and if it was any different from the excuses that had been trotted out, and the explanations as to why it crashed and burned (too much to do in too little time and they were too online and it was terribly run).

Nope. Full of "it wasn't our fault, we had too much to do in too little time and it was completely horribly unfair that Trump's campaign had, like, donors and ads and shit".

Then I saw elsewhere this story about Shapiro and his new memoir coming out and what he was saying about the VP thing, and it was too good to resist. This "he said/she said" is a recurrent pattern in Harris' apologia; for instance, she puts all the blame for the Rogan fiasco on Rogan. Ditto with Shapiro, who (as per the quotes) gives a very different version of what went down. She says she decided to go with Walz because everyone on her team loved him and she subtly (for her) puts down Shapiro; he says he decided this was not the right time or right thing for him and he was the one refused. Who to believe? I don't know Shapiro well enough to judge, but I think the truth lies in the middle: Harris didn't like his very visible ambition not to be the yes-man in the corner, and Shapiro figured out that this campaign would do him no favours. So they both wanted to wash their hands of each other. I tend to believe him when he says her staff warned him off giving her any bad news (such as being the one to say 'no thanks' first) because that comes across in Harris' memoir as to how she operates.

But yeah - as a non-American, it's all free entertainment for me (as a distraction from us worrying that Trump's shenanigans will crash our economy like in 2008).

The two accounts paint a surprising cohesive picture of what happened tbh. He wanted things that Harris wasn’t willing to give him.

” he was asked if he had ever been an agent of the Israeli government.”

It would have been malpractice to not ask this, even if only to see how he responds to the charge.

”He said he felt he’d been able to deal with critics by stating clearly that his youthful opinion had been misguided and that he was fully committed to a two-state solution.”

The two-state solution where Gaza is connected to the West Bank by a highway controlled by Israel, or the two-state solution where Israel gives up pre-1967 territory?

Maybe things have changed, but isn’t this considered anti-semitism:

” he was asked if he had ever been an agent of the Israeli government.”

Asking about dual loyalty until a few minutes ago I feel like has always been something you are not allowed to do. And since it’s a Jew that means the ADL gets you banned from every social media platform and payment system. Even implying that Ilhan Omar isn’t loyal to the US (after she gives a speech professing love to Somalia) is considered a dog whistle.

Have things changed this much on the Jewish question because I feel like not too long ago this was a straight to jail question.

Shapiro described himself in his own words as a "past volunteer in the Israeli army." He also worked briefly in the Israeli embassy- no; not the US embassy in Israel, the Israeli embassy in Washington:

According to his spokesperson, “His job largely involved educating the public about Israel by visiting local schools and hosting open houses for the public at the Embassy.”….

Screaming anti-Semitism in the face of questions over "dual loyalty" is losing effectiveness because the problem of dual loyalty among Zionist Jews in the American government is undeniably a very real phenomenon. They clearly do identify and love that foreign country and advocate for it and work for it directly! They are loyal to Israel, there is no question. You cannot serve two masters.

You cannot serve two masters.

Why not? Israel is a client state of the USA. It's normal for empires to influence their client states and be influenced in turn. It's normal for imperial subjects from client states to simultaneously be loyal to the empire and also try to influence it in ways that favor their homeland.

Lots of people have served two masters throughout history. As long as both masters are on the same team there's no real issue with it.

It is not a client state, it's an aspirational empire. It's not a good idea to have people run your empire that are loyal to a foreign empire, because they will probably use their power to exploit your empire to the benefit of that foreign empire.

It's an 'aspirational empire' with a population of only 10 million. The city of Beijing alone has 22 million. An ambitious enclave in a foreign land isn't a rival, it's an attack dog. Think of the British East India Company and its relationship to its own parent state.

It is no longer an "ambitious enclave", after Zionist Jews in the American government influence Trump to overthrow Iran on behalf of Israel, which is going to happen imminently, Israel will be the undisputed hegemon in the region. Imagine if Rome were dominated by Carthegian-loyal senators who influenced Rome to destroy all of Carthage's enemies so Carthage could be the undisputed hegemon in the region. That's not a hypothetical, that is the present day, and it's the consequence of allowing your society and culture to be governed by a people loyal to a foreign empire.

You're going to need a lot of evidence for that claim when the simple explanation that the American government wants a government with nuclear ICBM aspiration that holds regular "death to America" chants changed is much more fitting. It certainly seems more in the interests of America than Israel, which will have to deal with the fallout of a neighbor's regime collapse.

Also, Israel will still be almost an order of magnitude less dominant in the region than Turkey, and much less than the Saudis as well. It's not even close to being a regionally dominant power.

More comments

They didn't ask the question because he was Jewish, they asked because he lived in a kibbutz in Israel for a while and worked on an army base. They had to ask. The same reason they had to ask Tim Walz if he was an agent of the Chines government because he lived there for a while and took kids on field trips there afterward. They also have to ask these people if they've ever had affairs, if they've ever been arrested, if they have any criminal contacts, if they've ever been treated for a mental condition, if they've ever used drugs, if they've ever embezzled state funds, if they're having financial problems, and any number of countless other things that you'd be embarrassed about if someone asked you because of the implication.

The same reason they had to ask Tim Walz if he was an agent of the Chines government because he lived there for a while and took kids on field trips there afterward.

Did they ever ask Tim Walz that?

Yes, they did

I guess I would say it’s an American past time to not ask the obvious questions. No one directly asked Kamala if she was stupid since she did fail the bar or if she ever was paid money for sex. Both of which are very much on her resume. Some things are still out of bounds.

Her book came out before his, so she didn't have anything in it about what questions precisely he was asked, but she did describe what the process for vetting a potential VP is like:

My vetting team was led by Jen O’Malley Dillon, my campaign chief of staff Sheila Nix, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and former White House counsel Dana Remus.

There’s a reason we had top cops and lawyers on the team. It’s a prosecutorial process, as I had learned four years earlier when I sat across a table from the lawyer vetting me. The final stage, after the investigation, was an interrogation that lasted nine hours. The attorney took every aspect of my past, especially the sensitive or difficult moments, and pressed me on them. Not because she didn’t know the answers, but to see how I would handle the pressure. Did I get my back up? Could I pivot? Would my answers pass the smell test? She would periodically ask me if I wanted to take a break. I declined. We didn’t get up from that table until she had fine-tooth-combed my entire life.

So maybe they did ask her awkward questions, but on the other hand - she does come across as someone who does not (whatever she claims) handle pressure of that sort well, plus she had a trump (ha!) card in that "I'm a black woman, you need me more than I need you":

Biden had won the nomination because Congressman Jim Clyburn, leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, had thrown his support behind him. The Black vote in the South Carolina primary—especially Black women’s vote—had thrust him to victory. The pressure was on him to pick a Black woman running mate.

I imagine they did try and ferret out 'are there any embarrassing little time bombs that will blow up if we pick you as VP and then someone does some digging?' but since there doesn't seem to be any Nancy Pelosi-style "my husband and I get rich off investing completely independently of any tips or insider trading information I find out in my day job' and all the stuff about Willie Brown had already been thrashed out when she was getting plum jobs from him and throughout her political career (and very interestingly, there's not one whisper of him or anything about this in her book), I imagine there wasn't anything obvious as a stumbling-block there.

There was literally a brief period between Pat Buchanan’s campaign in 1992 (or really Gingrich and the Evangelicals’ greatest triumph in 1994) and like 2017 when it was highly unfashionable. It lasted a little longer than peak woke but it was hardly a centuries long phenomenon.

During the period of two wars in Iraq it should be noted. It was at peak unfashionability at the exact same time of peak relevance of the question with respect to American foreign policy in the Middle East.

It is considered antisemitic. They still needed to do it though.

This isn’t a dinner party. This is the Presidency of the United States.

The Democratic Party is setting up its own daytime TV arc. Oprah 2028!

In all seriousness, stuff like this is good evidence against larger-scale conspiracy theories. The establishment can’t even overcome this internal drama; it’s not going to do any better at playing kingmaker.

'Establishments react poorly to changes of plan' is totally compatible with conspiracism.

In all seriousness, stuff like this is good evidence against larger-scale conspiracy theories.

Not really. Joe Biden performed the top job while completely mentally checked out and unable to function for years and the actions of the government ground on regardless. The people who are actually "conspiring" are usually not the ones who run for President or any other role where they're subject to the will of the people.

Seems like a minor tactical mistake. If I were advising Josh Shapiro, then regardless of what happened, I'd advise him not to mention Harris at all. Whether she snubbed him or he snubbed her, no contact at all with the Harris campaign is a better look for a politician. ANY politician.

And also he opens himself to allegations of being anti black anti women and pro israel.

I'm pretty sure "pro Israel" is pretty much already priced in with Shapiro.

Shapiro, when asked about Harris:

"Kamala Harris? Who's that? Oh yeah, I think we might have met at a fundraiser once, didn't leave much impression. Did she ever end up getting that job she was applying for?"

It does come across to me as score-settling, and also maybe Josh has ambitions (that's what Harris accused him of) and may be setting out his stall. "Me? Her VP? Nah, wouldn't touch her with a ten-foot barge pole, I can recognise a loser when I see one! Whereas if I had been given the chance..."

EDIT: Seems like I was right! "Shapiro is a potential Democratic presidential candidate in the 2028 election."

Shapiro cant get through the ‘28 primary, he’s unacceptable to the socialist left.

Socialists don't hold a hard veto. If the establishment backs Shapiro enough (unlikely, but possible) then he is in a good position to win.

“Where We Keep the Light”? Huh?

This is an incredibly Jewish title. Light is commonly used as symbolic imagery in the Christian and secular traditions, but it is never "kept" in a "place" by "us".

I have no idea what you mean. When Jesus says (Matt 4:21)

Would anyone light a lamp and then put it under a basket or under a bed? Of course not! A lamp is placed on a stand, where its light will shine.

this seems to be exactly him talking about "keeping" a light in a "place". I guess it's the passive so you could conceivably argue that he is not talking about "us", but come on...

I like it as a title, but couldn't begin to fathom how it relates to the content of the book it adorns.

Oh, I have no idea where people get their book titles. Song lyrics or poems or something pseudo-deep they read online about "wise old farmer told me once" kind of blah.

Hey, it beats "Becoming". My eyes involuntarily roll every time I hear that one.

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