site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7125 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://www.themotte.org/post/2240/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/345489?context=8#context

I threw this in. Same prompt I used for myself.

It said:

Primary guess: 2rafa (themotte.org). Confidence: 80%.

The dead giveaway is the self-link to themotte.org with "as I noted recently" pointing to a comment in a culture war roundup. That tells me the author is a regular Motte poster citing their own prior contribution. Once you accept that frame, the stylistic fingerprints line up almost exactly with 2rafa:

  • Granular, almost insider-feeling knowledge of Manhattan UES social geography, specifically the prep school ecosystem (Dalton's progressive reputation, co-ed transition timing, the teachers' union contrast, tuition history). 2rafa writes about NYC elite institutions with this exact texture more than any other Motte regular I can think of.
  • Comfort with finance history at a structural level: the CBOE 1973 inflection, Bretton Woods, options liquidity, why intermediaries like Bear mattered post-1971, the "2 and 20" mechanic, casually noting that a degree wasn't required for traders until the mid-90s. This is a recurring 2rafa register.
  • The treatment of Jewish-American politics. Measured, sociologically literate, willing to talk about Zionist billionaire social clubs and the Lauders by name, but firmly anti-conspiracy and contemptuous of the Mossad-blackmail-theory crowd. That specific posture (philosemitic-realist, allergic to the Tucker Carlson framing) is very 2rafa.
  • Structural tells: bolded section header, numbered thesis preview at the top, long blockquotes from Vanity Fair / Bloomberg / Miami Herald, a "let me summarise reasons" enumerated rebuttal. Matches the standard 2rafa effortpost shape.
  • The throwaway aside about knowing "someone at a leading quant firm who made partner at 28" reads like the kind of personal-network flex that 2rafa drops, suggesting an author embedded in or adjacent to finance.

Alternative candidates, in descending order of plausibility:

  • DaseindustriesLtd / Dase on the Motte. 8%. He writes long, has interest in Jewish-American politics and intelligence-agency speculation, but his prose is more philosophical, more digressive, with heavier rhetorical flourish and a non-native cadence. This piece is too tight and too Anglo-cadenced for Dase.
  • Erusian (Motte/reddit). 4%. Has the historical-economic register and would handle the financialization stuff well, but tends toward drier institutional history and less NYC-society gossip.
  • FCfromSSC or a similar Motte regular. 3%. Style doesn't really match; FC is more political-philosophical.
  • A Substacker writing under a real name (Richard Hanania, Noah Smith, etc). 3%. Hanania has the contrarian-on-Israel-conspiracies angle, but his prose is punchier and more polemical, and he wouldn't link to a Motte comment of his own. Noah Smith doesn't write about Epstein this way.
  • Trace Woodgrains. 2%. Wrong subject matter affinity and wrong cadence.

If forced to one name with no hedging: 2rafa.

Congratulations? Or not? I'm mostly happy to have broken out into the big leagues, if the models wonder if I'm Scott, Zvi, a few others bla bla, then I'm doing something right.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9HTe5rqX4vo

Try feeding one of my AAQC's in. I have a few obvious tells and a few high variance tendencies.

Hey, do me now. I know I can do this myself but I'm feeling too lazy right now.

Sigh. Okay. I hope you're happy to know that the result of this exercise gave a me a stroke on top of my migraine:

Using https://www.themotte.org/post/704/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/147725?context=8#context

Which is probably one of the better things you've written on the site or at least has an uvpote from me:

Primary guess: self_made_human on The Motte (and Reddit/Substack). Confidence: roughly 30-35%.

Reasoning, in order of how much each piece of evidence is pulling:

  1. The themotte.org self-link with "There was a comment here a few weeks ago" essentially confirms this is a Motte top-level post or AAQC-tier comment, not a Substack or blog crosspost from outside that ecosystem. That narrows the candidate pool enormously.
  2. The author lives in the UK but is from somewhere with cheap servants, OTC pharmacy access, lax driving rules, and a low tax/regulation burden, and describes co-ethnics who want to migrate west. That fits South Asia far better than anywhere else, and the cultural register (sympathetic but unsentimental treatment of an Alawite sultan, ease with Arabic-derived names, the al-Nasiri citation) tilts me toward a Muslim or Muslim-adjacent South Asian background, though a Hindu Indian who reads a lot of Islamic history is also possible.
  3. self_made_human is the most prominent regular I can think of who fits "Indian subcontinent origin, now in the UK, writes very long Motte effortposts, has a basically consequentialist/realist worldview, and is comfortable defending Israel in HBD-flavored terms." He also occasionally drops finance-y examples like the Alphabet A/C share-class spread, which fits.
  4. Stylistic tells consistent with him: fluent but non-native English (the/a slips, "the are hardly able," "it's" for "its"), a fondness for long expository wind-ups before the actual thesis, willingness to be openly contrarian, and a recurring "let me work through this from the outside view, then sanity check empirically" structure. The closing move (vote-price arbitrage as a revealed-preference argument that political rights are cheap) is exactly the kind of cute econ-flavored kicker he uses.

Other candidates I considered and where I'd put them:

  • 2rafa / @2rafa: 8%. Writes long, confident, often pro-Israel pieces in this register, but I associate her with a more polished British prose style and less of the article-dropping non-native cadence. The "back home" passage doesn't fit her as well.
  • DaseindustriesLtd ("Dase"): 5%. Has the historical breadth and the willingness to defend "competent but nasty" rulers, but he's Russian/Central Asian, not South Asian, and his prose has a very different baroque texture, more Slavic-philosophical than this functional reportage.
  • Hoffmeister25: 3%. Right ideological neighborhood, wrong biography (American, not a UK immigrant from a developing country).
  • A Pakistani Motte regular I'm not naming specifically (possibilities like Tomato or one of the rotating cast): 10%. Genuinely possible this is someone who posts less often than the names above. The Moulay Ismail topic choice plus the Muslim-history fluency plus the gun-ownership-as-freedom-back-home line is more Pakistani-coded than Indian-coded to me, which slightly weakens the self_made_human guess.
  • A non-Motte writer cross-posting: 5%. The internal Motte link argues against this, but it's not impossible the link is a citation rather than a self-reference.

Residual uncertainty (25-30%) goes to "a specific Motte regular I'm just not pulling from memory, who fits the South-Asian-in-UK profile." If forced to pick one name, I'm sticking with self_made_human.

Well fuck me. No, I'm not you. You're definitely not me.

I chalk this error down to you not really writing outside this forum, or having the same degree of semi-fame I've accrued through posting elsewhere. But you've definitely helped me accrue psychic damage. Good for you. Bad for you. No cookies.

We may be overreading the magical powers of LLMs here. Frequency of posters matters more than granularity and the LLM will pull a dataset towards a big badfit rather than a small goodfit. I shoved the AAQC from Rov_Scam, RandomRanger, myself, MonkeyWithAMachinegun, 100prooftollbooth and Claude kept insisting it was TracingWoodgrains, Naraburns or FCfromSSC as the authors. I'm sure if I fed all the AAQCs into Claude it'd cluster everyone as either self_made_human (indian), 2rafa (new york finance), Tracingwoodgrains (vaguely angry pseudoliberal) or FcfromSSC (boomer) since theres a corpus of adjacency there. Surprisingly about 10 samples in and I didn't get any dean hits, so something must be happening to make Dean a particularly unscrapable voice.

Point is, the magic autocomplete is fun but it isn't accurate, but really if you think about it does it matter? Do we really have distinct voices on this forum as it were, or are we ourselves mirroring dominant stylostic term somewhere present in drips and drabs to make patchwork argument golems to slug it out? Who the fuck knows.

No cookies for either of us then, the model has revealed that we're splitting the same biscuit.

Is it a soggy biscuit? In that case, all yours, Count my good sir.

Also, go write something of merit so that LLMs don't assume "oh, South Asian guy living in the UK writing on... must be self_made_human!" In other words, go touch grass instead of getting the robots all tangled up.

Interesting! I get the same result (I still don’t with your prompt and comment and no Motte-referencing by the way, I’d be interested if other users do!) but it does know it’s The Motte.

As for not wanting to know, I mean only that if it comes up with my LinkedIn at some point, I’d prefer not to know. Naturally, I offer everyone else on the board the same courtesy.

Are you using Opus or Sonnet?

Opus. Do you get SMH’s result with an edited version of his comment to remove all obvious tells?

Hadn't tried it when I posted that. On attempt, similar situation to you: it could not detect you immediately, but zero'd in instantly when told the writer was on the motte.

I also got the same kind of result on one of mine, selfmade must have some kind of prompting special sauce.

Apparently Claude decided the only thing it could say was, "mid-tier heterodox Substacker," and I don't know whether I should feel complimented or offended.

When I pushed it more, Claude says, Freddie deBoer or "Scott Alexander in a very different register than usual" which is kind of funny.

EDIT: I am not even recognizable enough to make the list apparently:

The prolific, recognizable-pseudonym Motte posters who write in roughly this register and length: FCfromSSC, Hlynka (deceased, RIP), 2rafa, KulakRevolt, TracingWoodgrains, Walterodim, Iconochasm, Ilforte/Dase, naraburns, DaseindustriesLtd.
The voice here doesn't read like Hlynka (more folksy, more religiously inflected), or Tracing (more journalistic and structured), or Kulak (more bombastic and right-coded), or 2rafa (more cosmopolitan/elite-signaling).
The combination of (a) male first-person sexual self-disclosure, (b) sympathetic-but-critical analysis of both feminist and redpill framings, (c) the schema/CBT vocabulary, (d) the willingness to call out predatory behavior in kink communities, and (e) the slightly weary "I've seen women who..." anecdotal register suggests someone who posts a lot about relationships, sex, and gender on the Motte.
My best guess: FCfromSSC or Iconochasm. If I have to pick one — FCfromSSC. The discursive paragraph structure, the heterodox-conservative-adjacent-but-not-quite framing, the willingness to take seriously both feminist and anti-feminist claims while critiquing both, the married-man perspective, all fit my impression of his posting.
Second guess would be naraburns.

Sorry you two. Also Opus apparently believes that Hlynka is dead. Pushing again, I made the shortlist, but it didn't catch me. I don't think Opus has a strong sense of my writing style.

I did the same experiment. Opus weights Reddit and Twitter text much more highly (according to self-report) so it really only knows prolific posters from the old site, preferably ones who were retweeted a lot. It thinks I’m 2rafa.

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