site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24122 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.

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.

You're probably referring to this, and the recent follow-up. Much like you, I think the flaming-out poster is entirely imagining any "10 step plan to reshape society so that AAs collectively have reduced social impact, freedom, rights, and political power".

HBD is boring to me

Fair, but I don't think you should misrepresent others' opinions.

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.

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