site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14147 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nick Fuentes just tweeted this, surprised no discussion here (too much arguing about fascism?)

I’m voting Democrat in 2026 because White people can play both sides too.

The GOP broke every single promise: Epstein File coverup, regime change War in Iran, and no mass deportations.

The GOP must be purged and burned to the ground in 26. Hostile takeover in 28.

He was a very hot topic here a month or two ago, curious how our right leaning friends here are feeling about him/his thoughts as the ongoing right-wing divorce over Israel et al continues. I actually thought the right wing infighting a ~month ago had died down, but maybe it's coming back?

I think partially he's just engagement farming, but he was pretty explicit/firm in his views on his stream too. I'm not familiar enough with him to know how much he flip-flops on strong statements he makes a few days/weeks/months later.

Fuentes just seems like the right wing version of the "don't vote for Genocide Joe" lefties, they have very particular views and if you don't happen to match them then it's better to vote for the opponent as revenge

I feel like he had a brief chance to become someone really significant, adding his followers to the general Republican coalition. He would never be able to control the Republican party, but they would have listened to him. Instead, he threw it all away for some sort of purity test, like many extremists do. He'll have no influence at all, and it's not even clear what he wants. He reminds me of Jon Stewart- very funny as a comedian, but not much of a serious thinker.

I also think he relied on 4chan /pol/ memes to do a lot of the lifting for him in generating ideas, but 4chan is kinda dead these days, which killed his best source of material.

Purity test as in not doing a massive regime change war in Iran?

What is the limit? How low can the republicans sink while the base stays loyal? Americans should do what the British are doing by abandoning the torries en mass

What is the limit? How low can the republicans sink while the base stays loyal?

This current situation still appears better than the previous baseline.

Americans should do what the British are doing by abandoning the torries en mass

I would disagree. The UK can afford that better than we can because they are not as polarized; their current situation is a conflict within the local Blue Tribe analogue, with no significant Red Tribe to speak of. This lowers the pressure significantly, and allows maneuvers that are probably not survivable in our context.

The UK can afford that better than we can because they are not as polarized; their current situation is a conflict within the local Blue Tribe analogue, with no significant Red Tribe to speak of.

I don't think that's fair. The European Red Tribe isn't going to look the same as the American one, and while the hard right has it's gripes with Farage, they aren't that different from the American hard right's gripes with the Republicans. On top of that, there's Lowe, who might not be polling high, but ir doesn't seem fair to call him insignificant.

That said, I think you're right about the "can afford" bit starting a new party in Europe, even in a first past the post system like the UK's, seems to be doable with a lot less friction than in a giant country like the US.

Instead, he threw it all away for some sort of purity test, like many extremists do.

What did he do?

Telling all of his followers to boycott the election or vote Dem because the Republicans are too pro-Israel for his liking. It just seems delusional to me.

Fuentes has personal beef with GOP kingmakers because they have been shutting him out and getting him canceled for 10 years.

He was very public about not voting for Trump in 2024 too. Here’s a clip from Nick’s election night stream. I’ll let you decide whether or not he’s happy Trump won.

He endorsed Kamala last election too, this isn’t new.

That's insane, he's so right? No one, not even the Dems, liked Kamala lmao

was it engagement farming bait?

Same thing Richard Spencer. These guys (to the degree they are a meaningful type) endorse Democrats.

That is surprising to me given he's basically a joo-poster. There's no way he doesn't hate the Dems for being SoyCucks or what have you.

I think it's the outgroup fargroup distinction. They don't actually like the Democrats, they just hate the Republicans for not being far right enough and want to spite them. In the same way that progressives and LGBT people don't really like radical Muslims (and probably don't know any in real life), but advocate for them to spite the right.

Or, rather appropriately for the times, how Sunni vs. Shi’ite infighting and holier-(halal-ier?)-than-thou dick-measuring has ironically pushed the Gulf Arabs into an alliance with Israel in all but name.

I actually thought the right wing infighting a ~month ago had died down, but maybe it's coming back?

It's not, extremely online shock jockeys that only extremely online shock jockeys of both sides care about are not representative.

Sorry I couldn't find a link to the same clip that was not reposted by another extremely online shock jockey, but the right seems pretty united right now. https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/2029586732614557943

Richard Hannia is another similar example of this phenomenon.

If you're pissed at Trump for getting us into yet another middle-eastern war (and I am), the correct response is either not to vote, or to vote Libertarian. Voting Democrat is just telling the world that you want both war AND drag queen story hour.

Voting Libertarian, which I mostly do for largely deontological reasons, gives less feedback than voting Democrat within internal Republican autopsies. If it can be shown that Republicans lose elections when they put Israel first, they will be motivated to change their policies.

Fuentes, like Hanania, was always going to do this, though. It's not about Iran, it's about being controlled opposition from Day 1.

I don't know why he has followers or influence. I watched a documentary on him and his ilk (including some other, even bigger loser named Baked Alaska and various cretinous lackeys) and they really didn't seem like they should be able to attract many people to give them the time of day.

Fuentes is legitimately funny and a good speaker and the like. His followers by and large aren’t, and feel like they have a raw deal in society. Fuentes gives them an explanation that doesn’t boil down to ‘you’re a dork’, which will always be popular.

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