site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19651 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wes Moore: A Study in Media Bias.

Those who have been following the upcoming election cycle may have noted that Wes Moore (current governor of Maryland) has quietly been dropped from top ten lists and is starting to be listed as someone who might not run.

This raises some questions – he’s popular, charismatic, ethnically preferable, a Clooney favorite. What happened if he was so ascendent?

The answer is… unbiased investigative reporting, that for now is mostly swept under the rug but would certainly pop up in the primary and beyond.

The Washington Free Beacon has done two reports on Moore in recent months that are probably best considered bombshells and exclusionary.

  1. His academic credentials appear to have been heavily fabricated.
  2. A widely told anecdote about his ancestor fleeing from the KKK appears entirely fictious.

The reporting on this reasoned, clear, pretty close to air tight and with lots of room for fire that was held back (Mark Halperin notes that if he was the editor he would have tossed in a lot more).

Moore’s camp just says that it’s all Republican BS hit pieces, which is about as close to admission of guilt as you can get. Seeing this story, which hasn’t gotten much airtime, concerns me.

Our big media outlets just aren’t investigating (unless of course, it’s the Right). We saw this with Biden’s trivially obvious cognitive decline that now all Washington insiders admit was obvious and clear.

I’m not sure that Western society can function without bilateral media scrutiny, but you see things ignored, swept under the rug until convenient, and just discounted with “well that’s the NY Post” with no engagement of the facts.

What can we do about this, anything?

Bari Weiss taking over CBS was supposed to help, but that tree has yet to bear fruit.

Perhaps more concerningly – what else are we missing. Biden became eventually obvious, Moore got scrutiny in a presidential election. Most politically involved people know about Jay Jones’s comments.

What else is out there, well known, and not addressed because it’s on the right team?

It would be easier for me to take your claim seriously if you hadn't said it like this:

The Washington Free Beacon has done two reports on Moore in recent months that are probably best considered bombshells and exclusionary.

His academic credentials appear to have been heavily fabricated.

A widely told anecdote about his ancestor fleeing from the KKK appears entirely fictious.

As for the first claim, the story says that he made some statements about his time at Oxford that the Beacon couldn't verify, other than that he completed a Masters program there but never received the actual diploma. And there's something about the dates not lining up with what we know about his life. There's probably some weird administrative explanation for this, but I'm not going to speculate. The article has a lot of weasely statements like

The problems start with confusion—which neither Moore's staff nor Oxford's registrars were willing or able to clear up—about when Moore completed his studies, when he received his degree, whether he submitted his thesis, and what the title of the work was.

I'd emphasize the "willing" part: They had questions. Moore's people didn't think a story in a right-wing publication was worth wasting the governor's time clearing up, so they took the path of least resistance and sent over written confirmation that he studied at Oxford. Oxford probably told them that they weren't in the business of disclosing student records to anyone who called. I don't know what the truth is here, but calling his academic credentials "heavily fabricated" is quite a stretch based on what we actually know.

The second item can be dismissed even more quickly, as it's the kind of family lore that most people aren't going to perform any serious research to confirm. But even still, the Beacon's reporting didn't actually reveal the story as fictitious, they just couldn't confirm it. And I don't know how they would be able to confirm it. The contents of sermons from black preachers in the South over 100 years ago weren't exactly comprehensively cataloged. Whether or not some random black guy got death threats in 1924 isn't the kind of thing that normally makes the public record. I don't know that political candidates at the state level are in the habit of performing independent research on stories their parents told them, but even if they are, there's nothing here that directly contradicts anything Moore said. The reporting certainly muddies the waters and casts doubt on the story, but again, that's a far cry from "entirely fictitious".

At this point, I know that you're going to argue that the specifics don't matter and that there's enough here to suggest that Moore has a problem of at least not being entirely truthful, and that this is in itself newsworthy. And I agree. The problem I have is that you claim

Our big media outlets just aren’t investigating (unless of course, it’s the Right).

While this is true with respect to the specific stories you mentioned, this isn't true with regard to the overall theme that Wes Moore may have engaged in some degree of fabulism. CNN ran a story questioning claims that he "grew up in" Baltimore. And if that seems too small potatoes for you, the New York Times ran a story about his incorrectly claiming that he was awarded a Bronze Star, and they had mentioned a number of such controversies in a piece on the 2022 primary. In other words, the mainstream media reported on Wes Moore's questionable relationship with the truth during a time when it actually mattered. Moore is running for reelection this year, but as an incumbent Democrat in a state with a heavy Democratic advantage, it's unlikely that a minor scandal like this is going to spark his downfall. The people with the most to gain here are his primary challengers; if this were that big a deal they'd certainly be trying to make some hay out of it.

But you don't seem to concerned about his reelection, because who actually cares about the Governor of Maryland anyway? No, your framing is in terms of the 2028 presidential election:

Those who have been following the upcoming election cycle may have noted that Wes Moore (current governor of Maryland) has quietly been dropped from top ten lists and is starting to be listed as someone who might not run.

We're at least a year out from when the first candidates will start declaring. Who were the top ten Democratic prospects at the beginning of 2018? I've looked, and I can't find anything. The few polls on the subject that were being conducted at the time were asking about far fewer than ten people, and those included Oprah Winfrey and The Rock. The earliest poll in which I can find ten candidates (February 2019) has the 9 and 10 positions occupied by Michael Bloomberg and Sherrod Brown, who both clock in behind Someone Else at 8 (the poll named 20 actual candidates). Only 11 candidates actually made it to the primaries, and that includes people like Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick. My point is that saying someone is in a top ten list doesn't mean much, and them dropping off a top ten list only means that they went from a fringe candidate to a non-candidate.

Finally, even if it turns out that Wes Moore fabricated this stuff, why does the right actually care? They are currently in thrall of one of the biggest pathological liars the office has ever known, and as far as I'm concerned they've forfeited the right to get on their high horse about whether it's really plausible that Wes Moore's great-grandfather got death threats from the Klan. Trump lied about his father being born in Germany and his grandfather being born in Sweden. He keeps insisting that his first inauguration parade was bigger than Obama's when it clearly wasn't, and he doubled down on the whole hurricane hitting Alabama thing. Almost as soon as he entered politics in 2015 he would say something on the campaign trail and when it became an issue he would deny that he said it, even though it was only a day or two before and was recorded on tape. Hell, just a couple weeks ago he had his press secretary denying that he said Iceland when he meant Greenland. I don't get how a publication like the Beacon can support Trump through the endless parade of bullshit, yet when Wes Moore says something it's a huge scandal because he didn't hire a genealogist to dig into 100 year old church records so he can verify something his parents told him.

Media is hard since humans are self-interested monkeys that want to lie and exaggerate to dunk on their outgroup all the time. From that baseline, the mainstream media is quite good, as long as you ignore its coverage on identity-related issues.

There are certainly valid criticisms of the media, but what's telling is MAGA's utter failure to offer up a credible alternative after an entire decade. There's no law that prevents them from doing this, it would just require consistent work on par with what the NYT produces, and enough impartiality not to be written off as blatant right wing propaganda. This would benefit not only the Right, but the Republic as a whole for having a credible alternative. Instead... we get stuff like Nick Shirley -- a kernel of a real problem reported in regards to Somali fraud, but wrapped up in layers of partisan nonsense.

enough impartiality not to be written off as blatant right wing propaganda.

This doesn't exist. During the height of the Daily Show's popularity, Fox News' news programming was purportedly actually quite good. And that counted for absolutely nothing with the wider media environment because Glenn Beck had an opinion show, and thus FAUX NEWS.

There is no degree of impartiality that will cause a zealous, mind-killed left-partisan to not write a neutral media source off as "blatant right wing propaganda", because calling everything to the right of AOC "blatant right wing propaganda" is an important tool for maintaining the power of their blatant left wing propaganda.

It doesn't need to be impartial enough to win over deranged leftists, just enough of the center that people like myself or Scott or Bryan Caplan or Richard Hanania or Nate Silver could look at it and see a relatively competitive alternative. The easiest niche would be on identity topics since the MSM is quite bad on those, but right-leaning news is also terrible so we're in a "pick your poison" environment on that issue. On most other topics the NYT is good enough that it can generally be trusted within terms of bounded distrust that reading it will be a lot better than the average right wing news source, which at this point isn't so much Fox News as it is Tucker, Candace, and Rogan.

The correct comparison to the NYT would not be Fox news, though- Fox is in a different medium, just to start with. The WSJ isn't terribly pro-Trump, but it's still an overall right leaning paper, and the National Review is somewhat more pro-Trump and also a high quality source. Fox is the equivalent of, like CNN.

I'd agree National Review is fairly decent. The problem is its place in the Republican ecosystem. The fact its been willing to criticize Trump has made it a persona non grata to a lot of the MAGA-dominated modern Right. By contrast the NYT remains firmly centered in the left-leaning info sphere.

Did you read that one Scott article on ‘The Right vs. The Centre’ or some such? The issue is that the left-tinged media is just about good enough for most people most of the time, plus a big chunk of the MAGA partisans really does want some level of monkey-brained dunking (equivalent energy on the left too of course). What’s left when you exclude those two groups is a theoretical maximum customer base of maybe 20% of population across all platforms and that’s not enough to create and sustain a full on serious investigative media equivalent to the BBC or CNN. In England, GB News just about pulled it off but it’s clinging on for dear life.

Right-tinged blogging is cheaper so Substacks does well as does this place.

In general, I think Musk's takeover of Twitter really lends massive credibility to the idea that it works for better for both sides to take over large institutions rather than to recreate them.

I agree with you on all points. The reason the Right can't produce a quality competitor is that it has a demand issue rather than a supply issue. The parties have increasingly sorted by educational attainment which correlates with intelligence, but it's not like everyone on the Right is a moron. You only need like a dozen or so good journalists to start an institution. But the Right lacks an ecosystem that punishes partisan slop, so you have a few genuinely good writers blogging in the wilderness (like Arctotherium, who I'm a fan of) while the Right mainstream gets clowns like Shirley and podcasting fools like Tucker, Candace, and Rogan dominating the conversation.

Capturing institutions is particularly valuable when there are large network effects like Twitter, and I agree that Musk's takeover was a huge coup for the Right. I don't think it's quite as hard to build a competitor to the NYT by comparison.

What I'm saying is that it's not about Left and Right, it's about the Ins and the Outs. At present, the Left is broadly In and the Right is broadly Out. (Yes, I know, Trump, trifecta, etc. The valence may change, but we're talking long marches and it mostly hasn't changed yet. Journalism schools are taking in centrist-left-educated students and producing centrist-left-aligned journalists).

The Ins are broadly in charge of the historic institutions, that's what makes them In. They pull them as far towards their own position as they can without actually destroying them. (That can be touch and go, look at the decline of Disney/video games). They have monkey-brained In stuff as well, because that's what they really like, but most of them recognise the value of being able to propagandise the middle and have their opinions/prejudices/interpretations laundered through the mainstream press, so they have to preserve them. It's the same dynamic when the Right is mostly In and the left are limited to silly student magazines.

Rather than 'the Right lacks an ecosystem that punishes partisan slop' I would say, 'the Outs by definition lack a significant ballast of centrists'.

An interesting consequence of this is that you can get good semi-mainstream right-wing media if you find a community where the Right is broadly In and include a signficant number of centrists. Religious magazines like Tablet and the Catholic Herald come to mind.

Lying about graduating from Oxford? Well, at least it's not quite as bad as buying a degree from a Floridian faith-based diploma mill. Not great, but it could be worse.

How is lying about a degree not worse than buying one?

All else equal, buying feels worse to me because the results are the same--falsified credentials--but buying involves a conspiracy whereas lying doesn't. Of course, all else is not equal when the lying involves one of the most prestigious universities in the world and the buying involves a known "diploma mill".

In this particular case, the lying allegedly involves at least some conspiracy with Oxford, particularly its "deputy communications chief".

The media is probably the most significant institution that hasn't been taken over by Republicans, and it will probably be Red Team's downfall. Elon Musk has touted X as "you are the media", but it has been lackluster and for better or worse the mainstream media still shapes the narrative. Not just what's true, but what's even worthy of discussion and what people will argue about.

What else is out there, well known, and not addressed because it’s on the right team?

The father of suicide victim Dagny "Nex" Benedict raped her and is also trans himself. This story got suppressed hard to prevent people from even potentially thinking that Dagny killed herself due to her father's sexual abuse, which would be a far more heavy factor than the "transphobic" (not really) fight in the school bathroom.

The Washington Free Beacon has done two reports on Moore in recent months that are probably best considered bombshells and exclusionary: (1) His academic credentials appear to have been heavily fabricated; and (2) a widely told anecdote about his ancestor fleeing from the KKK appears entirely fictitious.

Links: 1 2, overview

Wes Moore (current governor of Maryland) has quietly been dropped from top ten lists and is starting to be listed as someone who might not run.

He's still listed as ninth place on aggregator ElectionBettingOdds.com—but tied for 10th on Kalshi, tied for 11th on PredictIt, and 12th on Polymarket.

Thanks for the links!

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