site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   7224 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.

2
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!"

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.

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.

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