site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24280 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 10, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the language they used and the values in their works are already at as far of a remove as Victory Hugo and Mary Shelley would have been to you. Entertaining, perhaps, for their distance from the present-- but otherwise largely inapplicable to their current concerns.

That argument doesn't really make much sense to me, considering that Hugo and Shelley are considered classics of literature that many people (young or otherwise) enjoy to this day.

That argument doesn't really make much sense to me, considering that Hugo and Shelley are considered classics of literature that many people (young or otherwise) enjoy to this day.

Given the ever-dropping number of young and old readers, I would say that this isn't the argument you think it is. "Everyone I know who saw the supergirl movie is woke!" "Everyone I know who likes books is fine with reading old ones?"

Well, who are you catering too?

I do not see how this reply is relevant to what I said. Your argument that I responded to (paraphrased) was "those books are old, comparable to [other old books], therefore kids are going to be disinterested". But books being old has never precluded interest in them before, even from kids. Therefore, books from the 20th century being old doesn't seem likely to preclude interest in them now.

But books being old has never precluded interest in them before, even from kids.

This is factually wrong and you know it. You can defend the bailey that people will not lose literally all interest in a novel simply because it is old, but cannot defend the motte that a novel's age has literally no relationship to the amount of interest people have in it. Yes, kids aren't going to be totally disinterested in old books-- but in proportion to the age and irrelevance of the novels they find on shelves, they will less interested.

You can defend the bailey that people will not lose literally all interest in a novel simply because it is old, but cannot defend the motte that a novel's age has literally no relationship to the amount of interest people have in it.

You have reversed the positions of motte and bailey. The motte is the more defensible claim, as the literal motte was the stronger fortification to retreat to if the literal bailey fell.

He has a much stronger factual basis than you realize. You see it a lot more in music where older things are more popular than current things. Also very true with movie stars where it feels like we haven’t had a new movie star in 20 years. There are areas in the arts where we basically decided to freeze in time.

Personally I feel like most of the books I’ve read in my life are older. But in general the current popular book are aimed at the mass market which would exclude most people here. For the top 5-10% intellects you likely do need to read the great novels.

He has a much stronger factual basis than you realize. You see it a lot more in music where older things are more popular than current things. Also very true with movie stars where it feels like we haven’t had a new movie star in 20 years. There are areas in the arts where we basically decided to freeze in time.

I think our respective preferences for media and novelty are just going to make it impossible for us to see eye-to-eye here. I mostly watch new movies, and while I almost never delete new songs from my spotify consistently 90% of the stuff I add was released in the past 5-10 years. (It helps that I have an affinity for screechy electronica created by trans autist furries born post-2005.) I can't categorically deny that men have a preference for older media, and I can't categorically deny that that has zero impact on buying patterns and therefore the propensity of publishers to target men... but the fact that you are asserting this via personal anecdotes instead of providing me proof via data makes me suspect that this effect, if it exists, is small and hard to measure... and consequently strongly dominated by the effect I have proposed, which I can back with independently-replicated statistical results. (Someone else in this thread wrote a script to filter profiles and feed them to their ai for judgement and binning on gender.)

@hydroacetalene this is also a response to your comment here https://www.themotte.org/post/3884/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/470522?context=8#context

What data are you proposing?

There have been plenty of articles out over the last decade showing people are listening to older music. Articles have been written about the aging moving star for a decade to the point it’s a cliche now. Tom Cruise is still the leading action movie actor now and he’s 64. I am lazy to look up the data but it’s out there. You also didn’t quote data.

One example article. Maybe Chalamet is breaking out now, but I’ve never watched one of his movies.

https://www.theguardian.com/focus/2023/may/28/why-film-stars-are-getting-older-and-what-it-tells-us-about-hollywoods-new-struggle

There have been plenty of articles out over the last decade showing people are listening to older music

I would be very interested in seeing this if it's based on some kind of empirical data. However, with reference to the actor claim:

The movie star is dead. At least according to the group of disgruntled sales agents, production executives and Hollywood insiders

This sounds like a vibe check someone came up with for clicks, not a data-driven insight. Especially given that we arguably have a greater proportion of people occupying themselves with the output of young thespians ever-- they're just disproportionately engaged in reaction videos, prank videos, toy unboxing videos, etc. instead of relatively highbrow hollywood movies. I say "arguably" because I know that my opinion on this is equally driven by unsubstantiated vibe checks, but again, that's my exact point... that we can find endless amounts of anecdotes or just-so stories in either direction, but that numerically it's hard to find worthwhile information.

I don’t think you can compare YouTubers to movie stars though that would be indicative of a decline of monoculture where everyone watched the same few actors. You seem young, but from my youth it seems like the big Hollywood actors are the same people they were when I was a kid. I feel like movie stars isn’t data dependent because there’s only going to be 5-15. It’s not a giant sample size. Is Chalamet the biggest movie star now that’s younger? Maybe it’s vibes but again by definition small sample size, but I don’t think he’s anywhere close to prime Cruise or DiCaprio or Pacino.

For your point on streamers. I would agree that Logan and Jake Paul seem bigger than any current under 40 movie star. Maybe that counts; maybe it doesn’t. The death of the movie star specifically seems real.

For music I just did AI for data:

“ Yes. Streaming data, listener surveys, and chart trends show people (including younger listeners) consume more older/catalog music now than in the recent past, and established/older artists hold stronger positions relative to brand-new ones.  Catalog vs. current music on streaming “Catalog” typically means music more than 18 months old. Key U.S. on-demand audio streaming figures from Luminate (the main industry tracker, formerly MRC Data): • In 2025, catalog exceeded 75% of all annual U.S. audio streams for the first time. Current music (≤18 months old) not only lost share but fell in absolute volume (from 339 billion streams in 2024 to 334 billion in 2025).  • Music from the previous five years dropped sharply in share: 49.6% in 2024 (covering 2020–2024) to 43% in 2025 (covering 2021–2025). That represents a large absolute shift toward older material.  • 1980s + 1990s music together rose from 6.9% to 9.7% share in 2025; 2000–2009 also gained modestly.  • Earlier benchmarks showed catalog already high and rising (e.g., around 66–73% in the early 2020s). Pre-streaming eras had far higher reliance on new releases for revenue and chart dominance because older music was less accessible. Spotify has described 2026 as its “most nostalgic year,” with roughly 1 in 3 streams going to songs at least a decade old and 1 in 6 to tracks at least two decades old—up significantly from the peak of new-music dominance around 2016. In early 2026, the share of Spotify Global Top 50 songs released in the prior two years fell to 69% (from >90% in 2019–2020).  Younger listeners are part of this. A Luminate study found that among ages 13–24, the share naming 2020s music as their favorite fell from 55% (2021) to 44% (2025), while preference for 1990s-or-earlier music rose from 18% to 25%. 1990s music was the fastest-growing decade by streams in a recent period (+8%).  Chart and artist-age trends • Average age of Billboard Hot 100 Top 10 hitmakers has risen recently (historically around 28–29 overall; 32 in 2025, one of the higher recent readings). Millennial artists have dominated recent Top 10s, with fewer breakthroughs by true Gen Z (teen) artists.  • The share of new artists on charts has declined over decades (roughly from 60% in the 1960s toward 30% more recently), with more positions occupied by established “hitmakers.”  • Older/legacy artists continue to score major commercial success via new releases, tours, and catalog boosts (e.g., from biopics, TikTok virality, or reissues). Examples include sustained or renewed streaming for acts from the 1970s–1990s and charting longevity for artists in their 30s–40s+. Why this is happening (and caveats) Streaming removes friction: entire catalogs are instantly available, algorithmic playlists and social media (especially TikTok) surface older tracks, and listeners of all ages return to music from formative years while still sampling new material. Nostalgia and the sheer volume of new releases (tens of thousands daily, many unheard) also play roles.  Caveats: Much of the “catalog” growth is “shallow” (music a few years old that stays relevant longer via playlists) rather than only deep pre-1980/1990 material. Very old music (pre-1980) remains a small share overall. Contemporary music still accounts for a large absolute volume of streams, and new hits continue to break through—just with catalog claiming a larger and growing slice of total listening. Data is strongest for the streaming era (post-2010s); pre-digital comparisons are imperfect because consumption was measured differently (sales, radio, physical ownership). In short, the evidence from industry tracking (Luminate), platform data (Spotify), and listener surveys consistently shows higher relative and often absolute engagement with older musicians and catalog music today than in the recent past.”

So it does seem that data rise current hits have steadily been losing share to older things.

More comments

This is factually wrong and you know it.

I know no such thing. I think you are way off base, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a fact you are incorrect as I don't have hard evidence. But neither have you provided a basis in fact for your claim, so I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Before we agree to disagree... can we actually agree on what we're disagreeing on? Do you deny any of the following statements:

  • Most books sell most of their copies closer to their debut than 6 months, 1, 5, 10, 20 years out
  • -> This rule applies even to megahits
  • Even books that remain durably popular tend to become less popular over time

?

These are the statements that I derive my assertions about popularity being at least linked to (though not wholly determined by) currency.

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