site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18936 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 6, 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.

Our (US) politicians are literally brain dead

Ok, technically we don't know Mitch McConnel is dead, but he's not been seen for 4 weeks since being hospitalized. Especially with what's (not) happening in Congress, I honestly don't see any significant difference whatsoever. And he's still getting paid ($174,000/yr).

This isn't the first time. Kay Granger disappeared for months (still getting paid) until someone discovered she was in a memory care home. It's bipartisan: Diane Feinstein died in office, 90 years young, shortly after she kept missing votes for health issues. The two most recent presidents are over 80 and seem to be having memory issues in office, and 1/3 of Senators are over 70.

And maybe you disagree, but I think it reflects how out-of-touch the US government is. I feel that most of today's politicians aren't qualified to serve in a retirement home committee, yet they're serving in the grand Retirement Home that's in charge of a country with about 350 million people and $32 trillion GDP.

What's actually happening

Allegedly the people in charge of McConnel won't declare him dead because that would trigger a special election, where he could be replaced by Democrat Charles Booker. Except Thomas Massie, a Republican-turned-independent, would almost certainly win if the party endorsed him. My admittedly poor understanding is that the party doesn't like Massie because he doesn't always support Trump and has principles; this is definitely a weakman, but does anyone have a steelman for why a brain-dead (or at best, long-term hospitalized) man is better? I mean, it's not like Congress is doing anything anyways.

Why Congress looking utterly incompetent matters

The United States government is at least supposed to appear to the median idiot to run the United States. What are children supposed to think when they see their 90 year old "representatives" literally die in office? Gen Z is not optimistic (even about their own party, and these are the Gen Z who still respond to polls).

I believe that ordinary citizens consciously and subconsciously look at their leaders for how to act, so leaders' shamelessness trickles down and causes low-level institutions to decay. This isn't a new theory. Why work hard when your politician gets paid more to, let alone adequately represent you, not even show up (or show up last Thursday for 30 seconds)?

And old politicians in general can't really understand young people concerns like AI, social fragmentation, and the HR-ificiation of jobs. I'm not asking for every politician to be young, but for example, more than 2% of the senate to be under 40 and more than 0(%) under 30.

How to fix?

Elect younger politicians.

I don't know what we can do beyond passive, mostly ineffective support. But even party insiders, I don't understand why they don't back younger candidates. They obviously must eventually back newer generations.

Is every potential young candidate as problematic as Graham Platner? 26-year old Davig Hogg could've been the DNC vice chair but was replaced, unofficially for criticizing established (older) candidates for being "asleep at the wheel" (sound familiar?), officially (not a Republican cariature, this was the actual reason) to maintain a diversity quota.

Other countries

Although political disillusionnment seems to be nearly global, other countries have less old politicians. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are a youthful 73, EU leader Ursula Von Der Leyen 67, Argentina's Javier Milei 55, and the 9 youngest current leaders are under 40 (the 10 youngest since 1795 are...too young).

I'm not sure why the US is so overtly dysfunctional in this area, or if other countries are more visibly dysfunctional in other areas. I'm curious if there have been very young politicians anywhere, and whether or not they've been popular or successful.

I am becoming more and more of a single issue “voter” on the topic of gerontocracy. In quotes because there is no party in the United States that is not actively trying to grow it and give more money to old people at the expense of the young.

In New York there is something called STAR tax relief for homeowners. Households making less than 500k/year get a yearly check that serves as relief for school taxes you pay as a homeowner. If you are over 65, you are a special citizen who gets extra money (means tested at 110k/year, but there’s no such extra relief for younger people who make less than 110k, and yearly income is not really as relevant for older people who don’t need to save for retirement, have probably already raised kids or don’t have any, probably have paid off a mortgage, don’t need to save for a kids college fund, have likely already accrued wealth such that income is effectively meaningless, I could go on). Why? Why do these people get extra money at my expense? It’s supremely unjust and makes no rational sense, other than pandering to a large voting bloc. Pure politics that flies totally under the radar. And our entire society is riddled with handouts like this. Combine this with falling birth rates, higher life expectancy, etc. I feel like a good 70-80% of economic malaise and existential issues facing America could be resolved or greatly ameliorated by just cutting this shit entirely.

Of course it makes sense, boomers are a massive cohort and old people have most of the wealth, and they vote. And for some reason young people seem completely oblivious as to how much of their taxes flow to the old, and suggesting you redistribute this somewhat triggers empathy and accusations of killing your sweet grandma. In some ways this issue is much harder to actively build a coalition around because almost all of us have elderly relatives around and we all expect to one day be in their position and wouldn’t it be nice to retire and have the government pay for everything when we do?

Mitch McConnel or Dianne Fienstein are more brands than actual people. You or me or any other of the posters here could probably vote on their behalf and vote all the same ways they would just from a cursory knowledge of their political positions. It kind of doesn’t matter who’s actually in the chair pushing the voting buzzer, people know that a vote for one or the other will get them a certain set of policy positions.

There was a time for each of them when they were certainly worth far more in their seats in terms of capability than the average person with a knowledge of their postions. Congress is more than just casting votes.

Near the ends of their careers, though, yeah...

But why is the brand “80-90 years old”? If the job is simply to press the red or blue button, why not hire someone charismatic? It’s embarrassing, even for the politicians themselves.

Because in parliamentary bodies, seniority gives you significant advantages, so dumping Mitch and Dianne for some young fresh face is strategically imprudent.

Except Thomas Massie, a Republican-turned-independent, would almost certainly win if the party endorsed him.

It doesn't matter if the party endorses him, it matters if Trump endorses him. Republican primary voters do what Trump tells them to do. Trump hates Massie for releasing the Epstein Files, opposing his wars, and being anti-corruption. Andy Beshear would win the senate seat if Trump endorsed him too.

People do not think congress runs the country. They think the president does, and the congress are do nothings that occasionally shut the government down for some opaque reason, it doesn't seem to affect very much.

Given the complete unwillingness of U.S. politicians to place American citizens' interests first (even when they campaign on virtually that exact slogan), I am forced to conclude that it does not matter who is in office; the country is not run by or for the American people.

Which American citizens? The serve the interests of current senior citizens very well.

YMMV depending on your pet issue(s), but given the current 15 percent Congressional approval rating (which is actually up 5 points from the 10 percent in April!), I'd wager that there isn't a single age demographic that feels they are being well-served.

Well, sure, Trump only gave every senior $6,000 extra per year. That is way less than infinity.

My favorite comment about this after McConnell was rumored to be brain dead, at least this doesn't disqualify him from the Senate.

I'm not asking for every politician to be young, but for example, more than 2% of the senate to be under 40 and more than 0(%) under 30.

Well, you'll need a constitutional amendment to get a senator under 30. There's a reason it's called the "senate," you know, although I agree that the current situation is a little too WH40k for my liking.

My admittedly poor understanding is that the party doesn't like Massie because he doesn't always support Trump and has principles;

This is the narrative the mainstream media is running with, and yes it is a weakman.

What this is is a old-fashioned power struggle between the neoliberal/conservative faction and the Populists. With the Cheneys gone, McConnel and his people are basically the last hold-outs of any note and they are desperately trying to hold on to that power. Meanwhile he populists want them out, and all Trump and the wider party seems to care about is maintaining the GOP majority.

Polymarket puts the kentucky regular senate election at a 91% chance for the republicans. I'd imagine they just don't want a vacant seat while waiting for a special election, as well as going though the trouble to hold one, when the replacement is going to land in a few months anyways.

I think term limits for senators and congresspeople would mitigate this effect substantially.

Term limits are OK but maybe a band-aid. Why do both parties endorse geriatrics in the first place?

Bernie Sanders isn't about to be deposed by his Bumble date.

They're known quantities and you generally don't need much brain capacity to push a button to follow the party line.

Geriatrics in the executive, the courts or the general state apparatus is where it's genuinely problematic, imo.

I'm not sure about term limits per se but I would support something along the lines of "after 20 years in government you are no longer eligible to run for office"

Wait, how is that any different? Just because it adds up all the time in any office instead of just the one position?

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