site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8239 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 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.

I had a longer effort post that got eaten by the gateway monster but as a change of pace from all the LLM talk I'm curious if any one was watching the SOTU. My reflexive read was broadly positive but I also felt a bit uneasy with there being not just one but two CMHs and two Purple Hearts and a Legion of Merit. My feeling is that this was not the proper place, at the same time I think that Trump may have scored a significant mid-term coup by by calling on people to stand if they felt that the first duty of the government is to the citizens of the nation, "why wouldn't you stand for that" feels like something that will be showing up in campaign commercials come August.

Asking a yes-no intention with the transparent intention to treat "yes" as an endorsement of the bailey and "no" as an attack on the motte is one of the oldest tricks in the motte-and-bailey arguers playbook.

I'm sure that Republicans will run on "Democrats are for illegal immigrants, we are for you" in the mid-terms, regardless of what Democrats say or do, and that the Democrats will respond with stories about Republicans deporting nurses, military spouses etc. The voters already know that the Democrats are insane on immigration, and that Trump in particular is borderline-insane in the other direction.

I am reasonably sure that the effectiveness of these lines does not depend on a specific audience-participation kafkatrap - if the Democrats actually had a credible immigration policy, then running tape of them not dancing like monkeys during SOTU would just be standard-issue negative campaigning of the type that doesn't move elections relative to the fundamentals.

It's very easy to imagine the reverse scenario too - a Democrat president asks all those who think fascism has no place in America to stand up, most (or all) Republicans refuse because they understand that when the Democrats say "fascism" they don't mean the Nazis, they mean them. Then all the Democratic-aligned media say look at all these fascists.

If I were a Republican representative, I'd have no issue standing to such a question because i don't self-identify as a fascist. It would actually be great for all the Republicans to stand for such a question because it exposes how ridiculous the Democratic framing of the current political situation is.

And here's the blood boiling headline you would have just handed the press: "In a massive blow to Trump and the MAGA movement, even Republicans representatives say they are now turning away from fascism."

The press will do what the press will do, but that might not be a terrible message for Republicans heading to the midterms with Trump's popularity ratings being where they are.

If Red Tribe needs the approval of the press to secure political victory, political victory is no longer a viable option and we will need to find alternative paths to securing our values. We have plenty of evidence of what results from cooperation, conciliation, compromise and capitulation to Blue Tribe. There is no road forward there.

Blues and "moderates" act as though if Trump could just be disposed of, all this ferment will go away. But the reality is that Trump is the moderate, mild voice of peace. If he fails, we will escalate until either we are destroyed or until we find a way to get the outcomes we consider necessary. Trump is an expression of the wicked problem of apportioning political power in a values-incoherent society, and not the progenitor of that problem nor meaningfully in control of it.

If he fails, we will escalate until either we are destroyed or until we find a way to get the outcomes we consider necessary.

Pure cope. The same sort of "oh, we could totally deal with all those left-wing pajama boys (who keep defeating us) if we really wanted to… but the time isn't quite right yet, and things aren't quite so bad as to warrant paying the costs this time, but one day, if they push too far" (where "too far" always recedes into the future) I've been hearing my entire life. And it's just excuses people tell themselves rather than admit their incapacity. I think RoguesPhilo on Twitter, who makes this point frequently, has the right of it:

The failure of the right to violently revolt in the defense of their nations suggests they cannot because they have compeltely lost the capacity.

…

They liken the ability to express manufactured terms by the system like "remigration" aloud in public to determine they have "actually" and already won a war they themselves refuse to fight in reality.

To voice "remigration" is a confirmation of loss. "Actually", you've consented to your invasion with your own tax money and to then peacefully release the invading force to continue the invasion whenever it suits them in the future.

To suggest that we accept a manufactured preference like "remigration" and others like it condemns the right to perpetual loss.

…

You're not "noticing" when you post. You're omitting your own inability to organize and fight. Worse, you're accepting your loss through the agreement of manufactured preferences. Worse more, you're agreeing that your nation and people have no value to you through the total refusal to organize in real life to do something as simple as revive a long forgotten rural town with allies or develop an off grid parallel system with allies.

Fundamentally, this behavior proves that the right is comprised solely of castrated men who have no other purpose than the left — to destroy the nation. Whereas the left destroys the nation through subversion, the right destroys the nation through its static refusal to move.

And:

Ted K would note that the right is paralyzed by surrogate activities.

A surrogate activity is an act that appears to be of great value, but, instead, reduces individual power, and leads to further subservience to the technological system across time.

The most simplified example from the right is their fixation on memes. They refer to the posting of memes as “meme warfare” and continually jest about ones position in the “great meme wars” of our generation.

They liken anonymous posting to a grand victory and triumph beyond any compare. They herald “noticing” as an act so profound that is is akin to an armed uprising in itself. These attitudes are precisely why we lose.

Rather than accept our true position — our nation was taken from us generations prior, our culture destroyed, and all was replaced by an artificial prison system, designed solely to exterminate us — we go on on pretending that we are certainly, absolutely winning. And, we know that we are winning because an anonymous account shared a carefully curated Pinterest board of photos that verify “sensitive young males” shall, undoubtedly inherit the earth with their ”old money” sweaters and boat shoes.

The reality of these beliefs became clear in early September with the death of Charlie Kirk and the Ukrainian woman. While Westerners posted anonymous grievances online about the tyranny of their declining empire, the nation of Nepal overthrew its entire government in a matter of hours.

The “high IQ” civilized folk did nothing. No rebellion. No public resistance. No organization. Nothing. The “low IQ third worlders” literally burnt their government buildings to ash, while they beat the politicians in the street. Then, they installed whatever new politicians they felt were needed into their government. It’s that easy.

and:

Worse, the lack of resistance to lockdowns confirmed to the government that we would never rebel again.

Why bother to deport invaders when your people will never chastise you for it?

It is you who are badly mistaken in your assessment.

You did not believe Trump could win a second term, and argued vociferously that all was lost years ago. Is all more, less, or about the same lost as it was in 2024?

In any case, you have already concluded that I am a liar, and I have already concluded that you are incapable of being anything other than tiresome or dangerous, and that I prefer you tiresome.

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