site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22d ago (text post)   23627 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I liked Jeff Maurer's take on Platner. The Dems are heavily pushing him because, unlike so many of their candidates, he comes off as an ordinary man of the people. He's a tough guy (a veteran), an oyster farmer, and he curses a lot. His working-class credibility make it easy to overlook certain flaws which would sink a more milquetoast candidate. All bolded text is in the passage below is my emphasis:

On the one hand, this doesn’t surprise me: Brawny dudes with the politics of a Portlandia character don’t come along every day. On the other hand, I’m surprised because the left just went through this with John Fetterman. Fetterman, of course, is now persona non-grata on the progressive left due to his strong backing of Israel and occasional support for Trump (he was the only Democrat who voted to confirm Pam Bondi). He sits alongside J.K. Rowling and Bari Weiss in the Pantheon of People Hated By the Progressive Left. Is nobody on the progressive left thinking that there might be a chance that if elected, Platner might go the Fetterman route?

Platner’s Reddit posts — some of which are as recent as 2021 — do not reflect uniformly left-wing views. Yes, he called himself a “communist” and an “ANTIFA supersoldier”, but he also mocked gay people and took a casual attitude towards sexual assault... Combined with the whole Nazi unpleasantness, these posts might cause one to wonder how deep Platner’s progressive convictions run...

And Fetterman, of course, is far from the only person to start out on the populist left and end up right-of-center... Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald are journalists who made the switch. Tulsi Gabbard went from endorsing Bernie to being part of the Trump administration in just four short years, which makes you wonder if she was a centrist for 20 minutes as she rocketed from one end of the political spectrum to the other.

...the populist tough-guy schtick is a shallow narrative that appeals to people with shallow political beliefs, so we shouldn’t be surprised when those beliefs change.

Platner has showed a decades-long interest in being an anti-establishment edgelord but only a recent interest in progressive politics. Which isn’t too surprising — a lot of people who like the “high-testosterone progressive badass” persona really only like the “high-testosterone badass” part. As of four years ago, Platner’s politics were a mix of left and right, and now they’re hard left, but who can say where they’ll be in another four years? Nobody. But some people like Platner’s vibes and have decided that’s good enough.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, in the next ten years, Platner jumps ship and joins the GOP.

I would be surprised, too.

Trump has a monopoly on GOP-aligned populism, and he’s shown no interest in a big tent. Getting in on his movement requires kissing the ring.

Sure, but he'll be out of office in two years and probably dead in less than ten.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, in the next ten years, Platner jumps ship and joins the GOP.

I would be surprised.

The left/right split in the US is increasingly about identitarianism and collectivism vs individualism. Some like David Friedman would argue that it always has been about this. Plattner seems to be solidly in the identitarian/collectivist camp, contrast this with folks like Fetterman and Gabbard who consistently backed the Democrats' economic policies but always seemed a bit uncomfortable with the id-pol stuff.

As I said above, the right is not about individualism. Just a different collectivism.

The right is genuinely much more willing to evaluate people as individuals or members of small groups while the left is much more willing to generalize. Treating people as individuals doesn’t necessarily correspond to granting unlimited freedom.

The "right" often speaks the language of individualism, especially around markets, speech, guns, taxation, and personal responsibility. But for other topics like nation, religion, family, sexuality, immigration, crime, and cultural loyalty, its pretty damn collectivist. Realistically the "right" is multiple divergent camps, some are individualist, others are far more collectivist. Do you really want to tell me that the average HBD believers, Alt right, and dissident rightists are in any form individualists?

Do you really want to tell me that the average HBD believers, Alt right, and dissident rightists are in any form individualists?

Yes. Allowing for collectivism in your framework is not the same thing as "not being individualist in any form", though with how extreme the demands for individualism are (at least as far as a certain group of people is concerned), I understand the distinction might be too subtle to notice.

I understand the distinction might be too subtle to notice.

No need to get snarky. Pretend for a moment that I am very good at noticing. Consider that the modal alt-rightist wants all the progressive gibs but for white people, thats pretty collectivist by any definition

Anytime a political creed starts with "and this [group of people by an attribute] needs to have xyz done to them or given to them", then boom you are in the collectivist category. Pretty easy boundary line.

EDIT: I remembered a couple more examples: Dread Jim is part of the right, he and similar birds of the feather are pro-men/anti-women collectivists. They wants spoils and policy benefits that benefit men as a class and hurt women as a class. We have several people here on the motte that are in this camp. This is right-wing. Classic collectivism.

We have our resident joo-posters/neo-nazis, again would be classified as rightwing. They are clearly anti-jewish/Pro-white collectivists. They in particularly want gibs towards white people much like the progs do.

No need to get snarky. Pretend for a moment that I am very good at noticing. Consider that the modal alt-rightist wants all the progressive gibs but for white people, thats pretty collectivist by any definition

Yes, I agree, but I don't think they're so collectivist that they've purged any trace of individualism from their worldview, which I think would be necessary to confidently answer a question like "Do you really want to tell me that the average HBD believers, Alt right, and dissident rightists are in any form individualists?" in the negative.

I mean this is needlessly picky, its like the one-drop rule for individualism. If you are even a drop of individualist, you are not a true collectivist. By that definition Communists are not collectivists, neither are progressives, pretty nobody but an actual hive-mind is a collectivist. A simpler and more realistic boundary is that you you talk about apply policies actions to a collective, you are a collectivist.

HBD believers,

HBD is a belief about an is, not an ought. It says nothing about collectivism vs individualism and in actual practical use is almost always used to counter a collective guilt blood libel.

nothing about collectivism

We must witnessing very different applications if you think the average HBD poster is making comments about African-Americans being more violent and lower IQ on an individual level. And not by definition on a collective level. There's a fig leaf towards it being an distribution and obviously not every individual. Followed up by here's my 10 step plan to reshape society so that AAs collectively have reduced social impact, freedom, rights, and political power.

HBD is a belief about an is, not an ought

Only in the most theoretical autistic form. If the belief is that certain populations underperform along ethnic lines and have increases in certain undesirable traits. The follow on is almost always policy actions to reshape society around that theory. That's an "ought" not an "is"

HBD itself is a term mostly used by us autistic online types. Your standard vulgar racist doesn't reach for academic sounding terms to justify their views.

Again in actual practice is used to argue against theories of disparate impact which are very collectivist. "reshape society" is impossibly vague.

theories of disparate impact which are very collectivist.

I don't disagree that disparate impact theories are collectivist but fighting a specific collectivism doesn't make you not a collectivist. The easy answer is you just want the collective to favor your theories instead of others.

"reshape society"

Idk, change policies, laws, culture so that certain theories are now fundamental to the fabric. If you think African Americans really are genetically less intelligent, and more prone to violence, do you really mean to tell me that the response to accepting that is: "Well thats neat but nothing should be done about it" or are there policy actions that people want to put in place in order to curtain all of that. There are clearly dissident right voices that want to use HDB for policy actions, the autistic folks just want it to be "this is truth, we should stop hiding it" but in a way they are being naive or useful idiots to the class of people who actually want to use those theories to change society. It's like Autistic Marxists being naive about what the hard core revolutionaries actually want to do to force a communist society.

Followed up by here's my 10 step plan to reshape society so that AAs collectively have reduced social impact, freedom, rights, and political power.

Can you give an example? Most I've seen is people arguing to remove the special privileges that were given to them, and therefore to actually equalize social impact, freed, rights, and political power.

I'll make a note to ping you specifically when it comes up again. HBD is boring to me, so there's no friction to make me remember this incidences and the search bar is functionally useless.

EDIT: I think we had a recent, past year?? flameout by some black dude with examples about all the nasty shit HBDers say about black people with links.

More comments

The right's collectivism treats people as individuals when assigning blame, but that's as far as it goes. They tell you what to do and them blame you if you don't do it right.

They tell you what to do and them blame you if you don't do it right.

That is quite literally what a belief in individual responsibility and agency entails. If you fuck up you don't get to blame it on "society" or some "structural -ism", your fuck ups are on you.

That's only half of individualism, though. Assigning everyone a role and holding them responsible for fulfilling is still collectivist.

Assigning everyone a role

This feels like hyperbole. Communist China assigns everyone a role, not the right in the US of A. But if it's just a premise, ok.

and holding them responsible for fulfilling

This is completely unobjectionable.

is still collectivist.

Only in the broadest sense of the term. Hierarchies exist and are natural; everyone has a boss.

This feels like hyperbole. Communist China assigns everyone a role, not the right in the US of A. But if it's just a premise, ok.

The right lacks in the USA lacks the power to do so. But they'd like to. Heck, even the European 2rafa seems to want that; her variant has roles assigned according to heredity, which is certainly traditional.

No it is not.

His working-class credibility

Possibly more assumed than real, or at least in my 'farm labourer/navvy on building site' family background, there weren't any Modernist architects:

Platner was born on September 1, 1984, in Blue Hill, Maine. He was raised in Sullivan, a coastal town near Acadia National Park, and in Ellsworth. He is the elder of two sons born to restaurant owner Leslie Harlow and lawyer Bronson Platner. His grandfather was the modernist architect Warren Platner.

I have no opinion on his politics, and all the screaming about "Fascist Nazi!" due to his tattoo left me rather more than less sympathetic to him (young guy joins army, serves overseas, does usual dumb young drunk squaddie shit like getting bad-ass skull and bones tattoo, oh dear turns out he should have studied the history and cultural symbolism of such images in that society because eighteen years later he will be quizzed on why didn't you realise this was the Nazi Death's Head you Nazi?)

He reminds me in a way of Fetterman, who I do dislike based on his public image, but if elected I imagine he'll just be the usual idiot and not the second coming of Hitler/Stalin (delete as applicable).

Possibly more assumed than real, or at least in my 'farm labourer/navvy on building site' family background, there weren't any Modernist architects:

He also went to an expensive private school and had Daddy give him money to buy his house. There's a funny bit there where after being caught lying about not getting support like that, he admitted that his dad did "loan" him the money, but it was ok because it was purportedly a higher interest rate than the VA would have charged him.

Which, honestly, is kind of believable. That's about the level of financial literacy I'd expect from a caviar communist.

My understanding is that he got the tattoo in Croatia. Nazi tattoo parlors are illegal there. He went to an illegal parlor that apparently had a lot of Nazi shit that you’d recognize. So at best it was highly questionable.

There's nothing at all in his post history that suggests he would be sympathetic to Nazi ideology in any regard. Why would he do that, do you think? I've heard others say it was from Croatia, so I'm guessing he said it in some podcast or appearance, but I feel like there are a lot of things we're assuming about this. How respected is that law, for one thing? Was he sober enough to even parse the other imagery in the shop? Or did the shop even have that other imagery? Where'd he hear about the shop from, one of his friends whom he respected? I don't even like tattoos, but there's a lot of unknowns, and it's couched by sympathetic factors like he was young and that there is a very pervasive culture of getting tons of tattoos on basically a whim in the military.

Sure I highly doubt he is a literal Nazi. I do think he was edgy for the sake of being edgy.

There's nothing at all in his post history that suggests he would be sympathetic to Nazi ideology in any regard.

Aside from the general left-authoritarianism and the anti-Israel stuff.

But the actual point here is, since when does that matter? Rules for Radicals #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." Every Democrat who doesn't denounce Plattner (and all of his supporters) as a Nazi, which he is by their own standards for the last 10+ years, themselves deserves to be called a Nazi.

So, to get more evidence for the claim that he was a mix of left and right...

Feb 20, 2018, posting on a thread attacking a politician liked by the NRA, in /r/BlueMidTerm2018:

I am always surprised at the rabid rhetoric that gets thrown around by Democrats when it comes to the gun issue. I vote Democrat almost always, fall pretty far to the left on the political spectrum, but since I grew up in a rural area and am a soldier by trade, I own firearms and have a responsible relationship with them. In the last few days I have been accused of being party to the murder of children, a tangential supporter of the NRA (an organization that disgusts me), and an all around terrible person.

These accusations don't bug me, since I'm a rational guy and understand that people are emotional over the issue, but it certainly isn't going to win anyone over. But I do believe the party (especially its more urbanized base) has a real problem with this discussion, and until they fix it will continue to lose rural areas they might otherwise easily win.

Apr 30, 2016, in /r/politics:

As a rabidly anti-Hillary guy, it's pisses me off that what you just stated needs to be said. The woman has many faults, but this Byrd shit is ridiculous and doesn't hold up to 10 seconds worth of scrutiny.

Dec 31, 2015:

I'm 31, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, have worked since getting out of the service, happily pay my taxes understanding that it benefits society as a whole and therefore me as well. I'm supporting Bernie because I feel sacrifices must be made to build a better society and a heavier tax burden is worth it (not to mention that simple reform can help pay for these policies).

In other words: Fuck your condescending comment, you fucking asshat.

And finally, a life story posted May 31, 2011. Lot of stuff in here, but I will highlight one thing to emphasize my point:

I was raised in New England in a pretty liberal and progressive family. My mother is a bit of a hippie, and my father is a very bright guy who never bought in to the bullshit that accompanies sending young men off to war. He became a teacher during Vietnam to avoid the draft, and imbued in me a sense of cynicism when it comes to why wars are fought. However, for as long as I can remember I wanted to be a professional soldier. For many years I have tried to come up with an explanation as to why, but have always drawn a blank. It was simply what I was destined to do.

As a kid, I just liked playing war. When I got a little older, into high school, I became a voracious reader of all things combat related, and developed a much deeper need to experience war for myself. Oddly, I was also pretty politically active, which led to my protesting the Iraq war before it kicked off (I found myself fighting in Fallujah within 2 years. The irony.) That mixture of political awareness and the deep seated drive to experience war to its fullest brought me to steps of a Marine Corps recruiting office.

I was accepted into a pretty decent east coast university after high school, and both my parents really wanted me to attend. Knowing, but not fully understanding, my need to put on a uniform they tried to get me to go to school first and then take a commission. Instead I deferred a year and went backpacking around Europe and North Africa, attempting to "find myself". After 6 months, I still felt as devoid of adventure as I had when I left, so I returned to the states. During my time abroad, I had continued my research as to how I was going to get myself to war. I bounced between the Army, for the Ranger regiment, and even flirted with the idea of running off the France to join the Legion. But the more I read, the more I felt the Marine Corps was the place for me. Although known as knuckle dragging brainwashed murderers, the history of the Marine Corps instead represented a service that was known for its outside the box thinking as well as its aggression. Men like "Hard-head" Hanneken, Smedley Butler, and "Brute" Krulak were much more the warrior intellectuals that I wanted to be. The Marine Corps history was full of small bush fire wars, quite similar to what I saw as our near martial future, in which the Corps had acquitted itself admirably. On top of all this, the Marine Corps also has one hell of a reputation as a hardcore fighting force. If I was going to fight, I was going to do it with the best.

I also wanted to fight soon. Taking a commission would have required a degree, and almost 2 years of training, and I was making this decision winter of 2003-2004 when Iraq was just beginning to look like the intense insurgency it was to become. I had been waiting for my war since I was about 8, and I sure as hell wasn't going to miss it because of school. Also, in all my reading I had always identified more with the enlisted men, living the hard life in the mud and the the gore with shitty pay and few breaks. To me, it almost seemed as becoming an officer was copping out, avoiding the misery. Officers are also generally not the ones who go through the door first, and that's who I wanted to be. So in February 2004 I walked in to a Marine Corps recruiting office. I told the recruiter I wanted 2 things, the infantry and to be in Iraq within the year. Now, I know now that only one of those was a viable request, but the recruiter told me he couldn't do alot, but he was pretty damned sure he could get me those. Sure enough, he wasn't wrong. I shipped to Parris Island on March 1, 2004, became a Machinegunner (0331) over the summer at SOI and reported in to 3rd Battalion 8th Marines that fall. I deployed on my first tour in January of 2005 to Fallujah. I saw intense combat there and in Ramadi the following year, and finished off my 4 years in the Corps with a sea deployment to the Horn of Africa and the Gulf. I left the Corps after making Sergeant in 4 years to attend school for International Affairs and language. I am still enlisted, but now in the Army and deployed to Afghanistan. I love this job more than I ever thought I would, and my time in the Marine Corps was exactly what I had hoped it would be. I fought hard with tough men, and did the best I could to help the people living in the war ravaged country that surrounded us. It shaped me into the soldier I am today.

I realize this isn't the standard "I went to war and now I'm broken and angry and depressed" story, but it is mine and it is true. But I do not want you to take is as some kind of cheerleading to join the Marines. You had better really want it, or you should look elsewhere. I know many men who did not have the same experience as me, good men who simply responded to fighting, killing, and losing friends differently. So you'd better be damned certain this is what you want to do, because if it isn't you will regret it a hell of alot.

Some people here have advised you to be an officer because it's an easier life and the pay is better. If that is what you want, fuck off and stay a civilian. Shitty officers come from the mass of spoiled kids who want to play they game without the misery. Frankly, I would recommend enlisting first and then seeing if it is actually something you want to make a career out of. If it is, get out, go to school as a civilian, and then take a commission upon graduation. Save your possible future Marines/Soldiers/Airmen/Sailors from your shitty selfish leadership, which it will be if those are your reasons for commissioning.

Good luck, I hope my long rambling helps you in some way. Just remember, if it is something you really want, well, fucking go for it.

I think this guy has been pretty consistently what he says he is right now. Maybe with more swearing 15 years ago, more gay jokes. But even on the gay jokes... this was posted on Oct 23, 2013:

You, Sir, sound like an awesomely masculine gay dude I would love to pound beers and clean guns with. Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for most straight guys.

It seems a lot more likely that this guy departs from the democrats party line in predictable actual Marxist ways than by becoming a secret Republican.

I don't think he's a crypto-conservative, but I do think he might undergo an ideological shift over the following years.

Per Plattner himself, growing up and getting older didn't make him more conservative, it made him a communist.

I did see a fair few comments fearful that he would be the next Fetterman. For me, that seems somewhat baseless.

Part of why I shared so many comments was to show that he's been what I would call quite leftist for longer than 4 years. He was calling cops bastards in 2020, talking about having moved further left at the time of an influential leftist's death, many comments talking about the dangers of fascism. Sure, he mocked gay people, he spoke coarsely on other subjects, but he seems to hold genuine belief on these other subjects. I could chalk up the offensive comments to just being a high T rough stuff type guy who participated in two wars. But keeping guns to keep the fascists in check, being an instructor in a Socialist rifle club, saying he tells people not to thank him for his service... Fetterman was never that far left, was he? What beliefs was the Substack author referring to when saying "mix of right and left"? As Platner would tell you himself, Marx was never about surrendering guns, so in his case, that's not indicative of a right wing belief to me. Securing the border could be, which he has professed support for. I think he was talking about more government support for veterans? That's not usually a leftist talking point, but he's a veteran appealing to moderates. I fail to see how he's been anything but hard left for probably at least 8 years now.

And Fetterman, of course, is far from the only person to start out on the populist left and end up right-of-center... Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald are journalists who made the switch.

I often wonder about this framing. Did Fetterman, Taibbi, and Greenwald really "make the switch", or did the American left move left faster than they could keep up?

In 2006 I was a solid Democrat. I wasn't at the extreme end of the party, politically, but my views fit comfortably inside the envelope of party orthodoxy. I feel well represented by guys like Jim Webb and Howard Dean. Since then, I haven't really moved rightward - hell, I may have even shifted left on topics of corporate regulation and tax law. Nonetheless, most political scales would say that I'm not a Democrat anymore. Somewhere around 2015 they started increasing the number of things you had to believe to be a Democrat, and at this point the list is so large and incoherent that I just can't do it anymore.

I can't speak for Fetterman's policy stances in general, but it's indisputably true that he used to support a two-state solution in Israel but no longer does.

Greenwald is still on the left (though dissident), he's just also gone full Hamas.

he's just also gone full Hamas.

For whatever reason I thought it was the other way - that he'd been basically run out of his own publication, The Intercept, for being too sympathetic to Israel.

Sadly, I'm not sure these two statements are necessarily at odds in 2026.

Read any of his recent Substack posts. His seething hatred for Israel is on full display.

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