site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11965 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 27, 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.

Saving Private Lump, Or Why Military Doesn’t Work Anymore

On the wild fields of xitter, the newest masterpiece of the oldest genre in history "why the youff suck so much these days?" dropped.

This time not from usual moral/religious POV, but from tough military guy one.

Why Military School Doesn’t Work Anymore

What's wrunff with the yuff? Are they drunkards, druggies, young deliquents, incorrigible violent thugs?

Nope, it is worse. They are lumps.

"And that brings us to the final group composing the plurality of students at Marathon Academy: “lumps.”

Lump is not a diagnostic category, but rather my own term for something I often saw but that resisted definition, a sort of combination of democratic man, last man, and mass man, the larval stage of the bugman that never quite sprouts wings. A lump is neither especially good nor bad, but rather a defined mass of inert matter. It lacks energy, focus, and will. Lumps, like plants, passively sustain themselves from their environment, but while flowers grow towards the sun, lumps gravitate towards vapes, porn, and electronic stimulation.

...

In particular, my school, like most military schools, absorbed a large number of young men simply impervious to motivation and lacking all drive. This is an increasingly common problem across the world of education and for society as a whole, and dealing with it requires rethinking a number of assumptions about the ends of modern life.

And what is the solution of lump problem? Beating.

In another age, in the same place, the student in question would have been punished for his lackluster academics with a trip to what was then known as the “bull ring,” where he would have received motivation of a physical nature. Failing that, once he’d caused enough of a headache for the student leadership, he would be run around the campus and introduced to a holly hedge at full speed, a practice known as “bushing.” By my time, bushing had long since been proscribed by the ever-growing Blue Book of rules and regulations, along with glass bottles, PT in excess of ten push-ups, and harsh language.

Notice that author does not say that the student is violent, undisciplined or disobeying orders, the offence deserving punishment is "lackluster academics". Private Lump cannot memorize his multiplication tables. Solution is beat him until he manages. Or he is beaten to death.

See parts of the world that believe in beating, for example Eastern Europe. Under tsars, communists and democracy, brutality was and is the rule at home, in schools, army and prisons, and the result is hundreds of millions of well adjusted and highly accomplished people who make their countries the shining light of the world.

Still, according to author's long experience, the lump problem is new one, the lumps were unheard of just few decades ago.

So where they came from?

It is possible that neoliberalism did it.

The lump is the end-stage refined product of neoliberalism, the perfect managerial object. He is the sort of lifelong boy a committee of women might design for maximum lack of systemic threat.

It is also possible that lumps were always there, but not in military academies.

Lumps, as people with no "energy, focus, and will" went with their life as laborers working enought to provide basic food and shelter, or, if from rich and connected families, were given some no effort sinecure where they could doze in the office all day.

In old times, military profession was highly prestigious and military schools had choice of the best students. Now, aspiring elite human capital goes elsewhere, and military is increasingly seen as dumping ground for losers and rejects.

What is the solution? No more peacekeeping missions, anti terrorist actions and special military operations, but retvrn to great wars ending in glorious victories, accomplishments so shining that every young man with motivation and drive would want to wear uniform and be part of winning team.

And a history teacher stuck dragging lumps through the pages is not, in a sense, a lump himself?

It's hard for men of delusional ego to reach those who have been demoralized or are at the very least exposed to representations, real or fake, of what 'winning' at life is actually like. Which looks less like a middleaged, underpaid academy teacher who views the world through a lens of struggle, duty and sacrifice whilst growing ever fatter in his chair every day with a sexually disinterested ugly wife who believes she settled for him, and more like the frictionless luxury advertised on social media by hot people in Miami.

We're just watching the Gervais Principle on a societal scale where lumps are losers. Tied together through classroom/media established hierarchy rather than an office one.

No one has really managed to piece together the exact chain of causality that molds some of our young folk into lumps. But it's obviously there. Most likely not defined by a single link but a thousand. And if ones younger self spent enough time scrolling on the phone alongside a lump one would probably get there as well.

Tyler Ziegel is one such link. A young man permanently disfigured in a pointless war fighting for interests completely alien to him. That no one to this day can positively articulate. He then suffers through the indignity of begging the failing state he represented in uniform for his pay. Before succumbing to alcohol, drugs and complete despondence. You might only see Tyler once in your scrolling career, but he will stay in your brain forever. His weight impacting every decision you make regarding useless wars in the middle east and some peoples willingness to send you there.

No one except the sociopaths can look Tyler in the eye and tell him he made a good choice for himself, that it was worth it. But only because that's good for the sociopath. If anyone who actually cared for Tyler could send him a message before he deployed it would be to tell him not to. He would have been better off "goonsimping" on his phone.

The clueless might argue that sacrifices are necessary for society, which is undoubtedly true in some sense. But the clueless genuinely cannot fathom why a lump would refuse to sacrifice for a system that doesn't meet his requirements. Pontificating on why is futile. Such is simply the nature of the clueless. He can only balk in indignance at the very premise that the sacrifice has to be worth it for the individual lump. 'That's not how sacrifice works', the clueless says. 'You're not allowed to question the cause. That defeats the purpose of it!'

But modern America is not built on the premise of sacrifice, but luxurious individuality. That's the American dream. The sociopaths get this, the lumps get this, the clueless don't.

Tyler Ziegel is one such link.

No battlefield. No explosion. Just a man worn down by years of pain—visible and invisible.

I'm fucking disgusted. Because instead of putting in a modicum of human effort to write a eulogy for this tragedy, the creator of that page opened his chatgpt and pressed a button.

FUCK YOU. Seriously FUCK YOU (directed at the creator of this slop). This is spitting on someone's grave. FUCK YOU

Edit: This entire website is just a fake ai slop site with zero content. You should know better than to link it here.

I read the entire thing and felt it captured the sentiment around the famous photo better than elsewhere I looked. Where the focus is usually on how 'sad', 'scary' or 'ominous' the photo is, when in reality it wasn't necessarily like that. To me it was defiant.

Tyler is only twenty-four. Rene is twenty-one. Ages when most people are still figuring out who they are, let alone how to survive a lifetime together. Yet here they are, bound by something stronger than romance alone—shared trauma, shared loyalty, shared survival.

It circulates online, often without context. Some see only shock. Others see inspiration. But if you look closely, you see something deeper: a moment where two people stood together in honesty. No pretending. No filters. Just truth.

I didn't clock it as AI, even though it sounded generic at times. But even if it is I like this specific post and don't see the fact that it was written by AI as being disrespectful at all. And I stand by wanting people to read it. (Not to comment on the practice of maintaining a website that writes AI eulogies.)

Tyler gambled and lost. Countless young men went to Iraq. Very few of them died or were disfigured. Of those who returned, many benefited from a luxury welfare state most Americans could only dream of - mortgages at rock bottom rates guaranteed by the federal government, free premium medical care for life in a place the middle class often have to spend thousands per year on premiums and deductibles, free college tuition, a lifetime of freebies and benefits afforded to veterans in modern America even though most of them spent a few years on comfortable Iraqi and Afghan bases with Taco Bells and movie theaters. Those who stayed in the military got to (or get to) retire after as little as 20 years of active duty, which means they could be out by what - 40? - on a full pension, when most Americans have 25-30 years of hard work ahead of them.

It would be inhuman not to feel immense sympathy for Tyler. But most who chose to enlist for the GWOT got a good deal. Or at least a decent one. And they did choose.

I'm partial to that line of argumentation. That within a modern western society the standards of living are so high and what's being asked for sacrifice is generally so little that it's basically a no brainer to earnestly participate. I think most people recognize this and earnestly participate. But on the flipside you are still getting lumps. So what's the deal there?

The following explanation, that a society with such high standards of living carries with it a variety of easily accessible vices that can demoralize people into lumps effectively contradicts the premise of the first argument; that the standard of living in western societies is 'high'. This is compounded by the short timespan you have to succeed. Fall to the vices or miss certain milestones and suddenly homeownership and a family are a real challenge to attain.

From the perspective of a rational lump, either the vices in society are so good that being a gambling goonsimping lump is just the maximally beneficial state of being and working to rise above such an existence or sacrifice anything for it is either contradictory or simply a waste. Or, society is filled with pitfalls and vices that are functionally psychological landmines that trap you and/or rape your brain and prevent you from attaining real happiness. In which case the standard of living in a western society for people susceptible to such things is low and not worth sacrificing for.

So either the lumps are playing out a winning strategy by being maximally individualistic and hedonistic to their preference, or the game is rigged, society is garbage and the lumps are correctly opting out of earnest participation and are instead doing the minimal amount of sacrifice possible.

Or the worst case scenario is correct. Society is working as intended, trying to mind rape you into being incapacitated or enslaved for incomprehensible reasons, no one is fighting against this and the only act of self determination left is to choose which slave socket you jack yourself into or how you are going to kill yourself.

mortgages at rock bottom rates guaranteed by the federal government, free premium medical care for life in a place the middle class often have to spend thousands per year on premiums and deductibles, free college tuition, a lifetime of freebies and benefits afforded to veterans in modern America

Of all these benefits you list, only the college tuition is financially meaningful. VA loans are often worse than regular loans (interest rates are typically <0.5% lower, but you also need to pay an additional $10k processing fee). The only "lifetime freebie" I'm aware of is free admittance into national parks... a $35 value once a year when the family goes camping.

VA is also a great benefit; it can save vets thousands per year, or even more than that if they develop health problems.

IMO all those benefits were not known WHEN they went to Iraq. The everyone gets disability benefits was not a thing until a few years ago.

I think when many of them went they were serving their country and probably at negative expected value to themselves.

It’s probably tough for people to remember now but post 9/11 there were people willing to sacrifice their life for this country and it wasn’t just a grift. The leading brand was Pat Tillman. If the towers went down today I’m not sure who is showing up now.

Maybe it’s better today people care more about what’s in it for them. I don’t see many people today myself included rallying because someone bombed NYC now. I don’t view them as my people anymore. Why would I bleed for Mamdani who’s been here 10 minutes. When the Towers went down those were my people.

I think it’s really necessary to look at the MoS when evaluating soldiers. I personally know guys in the military who would only face physical danger in a black swan scenario. I also know special forces soldiers who face double digit percent risks of death and/or disfigurement. I think we need to look more at MoS than just “is he a veteran” to determine both the danger the soldier was in and the esteem we should give his service.

Tyler gambled and lost.

With that you essentially concede the argument. If he just gambled and lost, you can't blame kids these days for running the numbers and deciding the game isn't worth playing.

He gambled and lost which men do all the time. How many young men get drawn into bodybuilding circles and end up turning into bloated, bald, acne-ridden losers who get heart attacks by their early 30s? Not a huge number, but then again, not a huge proportion of soldiers died in the GWOT.

I think it's pretty explicit in the rest of his post that most people who make that gamble are big winners.

Kids aren't 'running the numbers', they're sitting on their phones waiting to be given stuff.

I think it's pretty explicit in the rest of his post that most people who make that gamble are big winners.

The starting point has to be considered, though. I lead a pretty comfortable life. Getting a billion dollar would still be life-changing - but I value my life enough that I wouldn't play Russian roulette for a 5/6 chance at a billion. If you're already doing fine, how big a win does it have to be to justify taking even a small chance of ending up like Tyler? I don't think free college tuition cuts it.

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