site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9427 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 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.

Washington Post v. Karen Attiah

An arbitrator has asked and answered:

Did The Washington Post have good and sufficient cause to terminate the employment of the Grievant, Karen Attiah? If not, what will the remedy be?

As remedy for its violation of the CBA, The Post is ordered to reinstate the Grievant and make the Grievant whole, including full backpay and lost benefits.

Mrs. Attiah is the Washington Post writer who rather famously and falsely claimed that Charlie Kirk had said "Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously" in the immediate aftermath of Kirk's murder. I was going to say ex-, but that's not the case anymore. It's now established rule that the Washington Post can not fire someone merely for dancing publicly in the blood of a recently murdered man to disparage people on the basis of race and gender, and making false claims while doing so.

In this case, at least.

There's a legal formalist perspective where this is defensible. The Post may have included all of Attiah's post-shooting posts in the strict text of the termination letter, but they only quoted a couple posts, so maybe the arbitrator felt that the rest weren't sufficiently plead. Though she does spend enough time to repeat, without noting as false, the false attribution of the quote to a dead man. The Post did argue 'security concerns' at length, and the extent that rhymes with a heckler's veto isn't a great policy matter to rest on. The comparisons to Dave "Ratfucker" Weigel and a random contractor not covered by the stated policies might be pretty nakedly different conduct given context, but perhaps if you squint hard enough and there's no other comparisons, you get stuck with the bad approximations. Attiah isn't a government employee, but she is a union one, so as tempting as the obvious Damore comparisons get, they do have limits.

But it's still the floor, now.

Since this was decision by arbitration over violation of a union CBA, the question of whether saying something stupid and offensive qualifies as "gross misconduct" seems to depend on how their contract was written, not whether the average person thinks dancing in the blood of a murdered man is gross and unprofessional.

While we can all fill in the obvious shoe-on-the-other-foot hypotheticals, I would like to know if there are any comparable cases where a Post writer was fired for "gross misconduct" for social media posts.

Probably not. Sonmez was fired, but it took a six-day tweetstorm (and, frankly, a psychotic break), presumably with a bunch of warnings, and she had past bad conduct and punishment (including a previous incident involving a tragic death). Horwitz got a short suspension for plagiarism (copying two paragraphs about a legal regime), not a firing. Achenbach's hard to tell since it's a MeToo era case, so no idea where to put it except to say he was only suspended. In other cases, people just duck out of the business in a 'you can't fire me I quit sense': Cooke was definitely worse, and 'Ratfucker' Weigel wasn't worse and resigned or got a suspension, depending on which time you want to go with.

If you include other major press, you can find examples, even union shops like McNeil from the NYT or government-adjacent groups like Williams at NPR. But they're a different CBA or legal regime.

Of course, that leaves us debating whether a major newspaper has its hands tied because the staff behaved, or the previous owners were nutjobs letting bad behavior go reign free, long enough.

I notice that the arbitrator did not point to a part of the contract defining or limiting the bounds of "gross misconduct". Instead, she made a comparison to someone not covered by the policy to begin with, and described his situation in the last favorable manner.

Since this was decision by arbitration over violation of a union CBA, the question of whether saying something stupid and offensive qualifies as "gross misconduct" seems to depend on how their contract was written...

This appears to be an appeal to formal rule-based systems. I'm comfortable arguing that neither this system nor any system like it has ever or will ever protect people like me in a situation like this one. If I'm correct in that argument, people like me have no interest in accepting the output of this system, nor in maintaining or preserving systems of this sort generally.

That being said, you're looking for context, and that's a reasonable thing to do in my view. Even if a system is biased, there's still something to be said for consistency over time, even intratribal.

I seem to recall some cases where unions refused to defend workers accused of racism, but I can't find them now and I'm pretty sure they were teacher's unions. I did find this case where an AFL-CIO affiliated union did successfully defend a white worker accused of doing a racism against a black person.

There is a vast difference between AFL unions and teachers unions. It could have also been an SEIU Union, which is even more aggressively left wing.

This appears to be an appeal to formal rule-based systems.

"So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

"Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

This is why one of the things people were saying in January 2025 is "the laws are flat". The formal systems had ALREADY been knocked down in order to cancel (and in some cases imprison) right-wing people. So the thing to do is make like the Devil and turn 'round on them.

A moving performance and a powerful clip. But if the laws instead lie flat as a crop-circle for one's enemies but tall and thick to protect one's friends you just have anarchotyranny.

Why depend on the law for your own safety's sake? Why not cut down every law in England to get after the Devil, and then if he turns round on you, just prop them back up again to hide behind? What, specifically, keeps them down?

This is a serious question, and it deserves a serious answer.

[EDIT] Let me make the point more explicitly. You are making the argument to me that if one disregards the laws, then the laws will not be there to help one when they are needed. My argument is that my opponents have disregarded the laws, and so should not be able to appeal to them. If I am right that they have disregarded the laws, but you insist I should still give them benefit of them, then I ought likewise to be able to disregard the law and still receive the benefit of them, so disregarding their appeal to the laws is the correct position to take. If your argument is that once disregarded, the laws cannot be appealed to, then my opponents' previous disregard means I should reject their appeals now, and disregarding their appeal to the laws is likewise the correct position to take.

If your argument is that they should be able to disregard the law an unlimited amount of times and yet still appeal to the law, and if I reject such appeals I will be denied the benefit of the law in my hour of need, I will point out that this is a needlessly convoluted way of declaring oneself an enemy.

Define people like you?

This was a union arbitration contract. Union arbitration contracts are notorious for protecting people that did verboten to liberals things(normally sexual harassment but racial comments definitely would be a thing there).

This appears to be an appeal to formal rule-based systems.

Yes. I still care about these things. If you're right it won't matter.

If I'm right, it might not be too late to arrest the process or at least mitigate the damage, or in the final extremity to see it coming and bypass doom. But arresting the process would mean building some sort of durable norm, and I think you would agree this isn't that. If the idea was that we bury the idea of stochastic terrorism and group accountability for all imaginable consequences of hostility to the other and actually restored an iron law of free speech maximalism from this day forth, that would be one thing. But it seems to me that anyone who doesn't realize that this will wrench back the other way the moment the shoe is on the other foot is lying to themselves. This is a conversation we can have in advance, and it seems to me that we should have it in advance, if for no other reason that preparing to exploit that inevitable flip to the maximal extent possible is absolutely, obviously in my Tribe's interest, and any counter-argument to pursuing that interest zealously is never going to have a better chance of succeeding than it has right now.

What am I supposed to do about it? I do argue for free speech maximalism and fairness. It makes me as popular among my Blue tribe cohort as I am among the Reds here.

Staking out the moral high ground when that plot of land isn't in play is a cheap signal. I agree with you about the theoretical advantage of free speech maximalism. I also know that isn't an option in the current dispensation, or probably ever. If we're arguing black-box politics, you're absolutely right. If we're arguing real-world political coalitions in which one group has much more of a censorship apparatus than the other, and both are going ham with what they've got.....then free speech maximalism is just Lions fandom. The adulation of a losing team for the purpose of not having to pick between real contenders.

FWIW, I find myself working through a lot of my libertarian beliefs like this recently.

Speech maximalists fundamentally fail because it requires speech maximalism to be the ultimate good. If Che Guevara is winning but you have one final moment to stop his movement and hang him and essentially protect your shire almosts everyone is choosing to hang him. And the US government and people have chosen this route many times.

Sometimes you need to be anti-liberal to save liberalism.

[free speech maximalism is like] Lions fandom. The adulation of a losing team for the purpose of not having to pick between real contenders.

I think you're dead wrong about Lions fans, and by extension free speech maximalists. They aren't sticking with a losing thing because that's easier than choosing between possible contenders, they are sticking with the losing thing because they truly love it and are unwilling to abandon it no matter the cost. I think that this is noble and something more people should emulate, personally. The world is a shitshow these days precisely because so many people evaluate their principles based upon the results they get from them, rather than sticking to "sorry, but this is just plain right and I don't care if anyone else agrees".

gattsuru post

Oh boy! Time to be disappointed in society, maybe a little stressed out.

legal formalist

I’m not really sure that’s the problem here. Thiessen was the bar to clear. If the Post had booted him, or if Attiah had been obviously more extreme, I expect the arbitrator would have gone the other way. See the rejection of the union’s claim of pretextuality.

Oh boy! Time to be disappointed in society, maybe a little stressed out.

Fair strike. This is a smaller and less doom-scrolly one, but in turn, it's still pessimistic. I was actually trying to write up the silencer shop stuff last week, and that's more optimistic, but it also just turned into this giant nest of conflicting legal theory instead of anything interesting.

Thiessen was the bar to clear. If the Post had booted him, or if Attiah had been obviously more extreme, I expect the arbitrator would have gone the other way.

Ignoring for now that Thiessen was not subject to the text of the Social Media Agreement or collective bargaining agreement, the allegations here are that he :

These might have been inadvisable. I could argue that at least some of the efforts were disproportionate. I can believe an arbitrator thinks they have similar violations of rules.

I don't believe that they're similar violations of rules. And I note that the arbitrator neither did actually show that, nor summarized them accurately.

As best I can tell from reading the decision the incorrect quote of Kirk didn't come up in the firing context at all. There were two posts cited to, allegedly because they disparaged white men on the basis of gender or race, but the arbitrator ruled that was not supportable by reference to the post themselves (Page 30, Section C The Record Does Not Establish That the Grievant Disparaged White Men). The posts themselves are:

Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence

Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.

As a white man myself, I don't feel disparaged by either post.

The only other basis given for the firing was the alleged security threat due to other people threatening Attiah for her posts on the topic. I generally think it would be a bad precedent to set that you can get fired because other people communicate threats against you. If people had sent threats to Google over Damore, would they have been more justified in firing him?

More generally, I think this illustrates the advantage of having a union! If there wasn't a CBA I'm skeptical Attiah would have won a more general employment discrimination lawsuit from this set of facts.

As best I can tell from reading the decision the incorrect quote of Kirk didn't come up in the firing context at all.

The termination letter gives examples that don't include the incorrect quote; the strict text of "Your public comments on social media regarding the death of Charlie Kirk" do.

As a white man myself, I don't feel disparaged by either post.

That's nice, but the test is not traditionally resolved by finding one person with thick skin.

The only other basis given for the firing was the alleged security threat due to other people threatening Attiah for her posts on the topic. I generally think it would be a bad precedent to set that you can get fired because other people communicate threats against you.

Fair, and agreed.

More generally, I think this illustrates the advantage of having a union!

I think it illustrates the advantage of having a union for Attiah. Even in the rare winnable case for a conservative, there's limited way to get the union involved or punish it where it encouraged the unlawful firing, short of winning the case first (and sometimes not even then).

As a white man myself, I don't feel disparaged by either post.

I mean, I don't feel disparaged as such, I regard this kind of thing as so infantile that it's trivially beneath my notice. Attiah is so obviously an idiot that it's a waste for me to even take offense. But this kind of rhetoric is all part of a "Radio Rwanda" dehumanization campaign. It's all rooted in extreme racism against whites. Which is why, in the first place, she can't just say "a man who espoused violence," she has to emphasize his racial identity, she has to establish that he's white: What Kind of Man Is He?!? A White Man! It's really simply plain racism. Again notice her problem with America -- it's not that America "performs care" for people "who espouse hatred and violence", the problem is that America is too nice to white men! The implication is either that she wouldn't have a problem if espousing hatred was done by non-whites, or she doesn't consider it to be a problem in the first place. (Non-whites espousing hatred and violence is just a hypothetical.)

Notably, if I said something similar it would be understood as inflammatory (in a way that doesn't even add anything worth discussing). The problem with America is its insistent on catering to black men who practice violence and hatred... see what I mean

I'm not really going to get offended by this stuff, but I do take offense. How else am I supposed to react? She clearly wants to disrespect me, that's worth less than caring what she has to think but worth more than acting as if I don't know what she's really saying.

Why doesn't she just move to Liberia so she won't have to deal with any of those icky white men anymore?

This is just sneering. Don't do this.

The implication is either that she wouldn't have a problem if espousing hatred was done by non-whites, or she doesn't consider it to be a problem in the first place. (Non-whites espousing hatred and violence is just a hypothetical.

I'm sure if I dig into this person's post history or knew their views I would find them despicable but this simply doesn't follow from the above quote. There is a more charitable, and I honestly think in this case correct, reading that she views it as a hypocrisy because she, incorrectly, believes that America would not expect people "tear [their] clothes and smear ashes on [their] faces in performative mourning for a [black] man that espoused violence"

Yeah that’s fair , I mean something like this with the phrase “doesn’t consider it a problem in the first place”. I think the likeliest explanation is she would say society caters to whites (or something) so hatred against whites a priori doesn’t happen. But this is coupled with an attitude that very casually could be read as more aggressive, because 1) she’s not a very careful or smart thinker and, 2) she actually is filled with animus against white people

Which is why, in the first place, she can't just say "a man who espoused violence," she has to emphasize his racial identity, she has to establish that he's white: What Kind of Man Is He?!? A White Man! It's really simply plain racism.

Would you say the same to right-wingers who complain about the race and national background of criminals/suspects being left out when they belong to a left-favoured group? Because this complaint really just looks like plain old culture war stuff that both sides run on to me: make bad acts by the outgroup and good acts by the ingroup stick, but insist on individuality for the converse.

  1. Right-wingers generally know they’re racist

  2. Right-wingers are in fact held to such high standards that extremely careful and specific claims are treated with extreme prejudice. (See John Derbyshire being fired from his op-ed job.)

  3. Attiah is not making a careful remark at all. She is bringing race into something that was not racial at all (a white conservative getting shot by a white man). She’s doing this so she can inflame the situation, but also because she’s extremely stupid.

  4. Attiah wants to say this because she has animus against white people. Even a lot of right-wing commentary doesn’t pass this threshold (and a lot of it does — but you won’t see it at the Washington Post). The point is that Attiah is given a national platform to say, basically, we need to disenfranchise white people.

  5. And, yes, of course it’s about the outgroup. It’s really simple: Attiah is saying out loud that I am in her outgroup, and she intends to be in mine. Ok then! No need to make it more complicated than that. I’m not going to go out of my way to hold her to a higher or lower standard than I hold myself, because I don’t degrade myself like that for other people, but it’s not about standards at all: she hates me no matter what standards I have.

Well, the author in question (in an actual article) did make some comments structured similarly about black women. From page 25/26 of the arbitration PDF:

Ms. Attiah herself routinely wrote about the way in which race influences the discourse around politics and violence. Indeed, the Post published her column in 2024 under a headline chosen by her editors: “Harris and Black women are face of Biden administration’s ugly Gaza policy.” The piece was highly critical of “Black women,” stating, among other things, “Black women are both enforcing U.S. complicity in this atrocity and attempting to soften its appearance.”

Is it racist against black women to describe them as "enforcing U.S. complicity in [an] atrocity?"

These are categorically different remarks.

The comment about white men is that society does too much for them. Whiteness is emphasized above and beyond Charlie Kirk and made into a general tendency that needs to be changed.

The comment about black women is that they should know better. The author literally proclaims that black sacrifice “lent an air of moral authority” to the Biden administration’s actions.

It’s really obvious: white violence is extra bad because white men are evil; black violence is extra bad because black women are supposed to be good.

white violence is extra bad because white men are evil

I think the point is more "feeling bad about violence against white men is superfluous, because white men are privileged".

Do you think this is a just outcome for this incident?

If you think this is a just outcome, are you comfortable with people generalizing the logic behind this outcome into a set of rules you will then accept living under?

If this is an example of what Unions can achieve, I am even less interested in allowing unions to continue existing than I was previously.

My predictions were logged long ago that I think violence is going to increase. When it does, I intend to quote this post and the context it references back to you, to the letter.

are you comfortable with people generalizing the logic behind this outcome into a set of rules you will then accept living under?

The general logic that contractually agreed upon terms should be followed by employers is very comfortable to me personally.

They really shouldn't have put "you can be a gigantic bigoted asshole, as long as its against These Particular Groups" clause in there.

Do you think that's the correct level of generalization here?

My predictions were logged long ago that I think violence is going to increase. When it does, I intend to quote this post and the context it references back to you, to the letter.

Your predictions have been logged long enough to have been proven wrong. Violence has decreased broadly since the pandemic. I imagine you'll point towards the two attempted Trump assassinations and Charlie Kirk, but I'm unconvinced this is out of the ordinary for a particularly controversial political figure.

Are you willing to make any actual falsifiable predictions on any kind of timeline? You all predicted riots and burning and political violence after the Roe V. Wade repeal, after the 2024 elections, after pretty much every red tribe victory. And just like your predictions about the coming 1,000 year Christian Nationalist Reich in the wake of the 2024 election, you've been categorically wrong. What is it you all like to say? The demand for political violence outstrips supply?

I first read you predicting catastrophic political violence and the disintegration of American society 6 years ago on reddit, and I'm still here in 2026 reading it after none of these things have come to pass.

have you made any comments on the fauci diaries, or is that not your beat anymore, part of the pandemic amnesia?

I have not, nor has anyone else to my knowledge. But I also know very little about them.

I imagine you'll point towards the two attempted Trump assassinations and Charlie Kirk, but I'm unconvinced this is out of the ordinary for a particularly controversial political figure.

I would also point to the popular reaction to the murder of Kirk and the attempts to murder Trump within Blue Tribe, and how these reactions compare to Blue Tribe's previous positions on how speech should be policed. I'll point to the endemic calls for the assassination of Musk, the organized vandalism and arson campaigns against Tesla dealerships and even (IIRC) individuals' personally-owned vehicles, and how major national politicians winked and nodded along rather than taking a stand against their mob. I'll point to Mangione's killing of the United Health CEO, and the obscene public reaction to the killing from grassroots Blues generally. I'll point to the continued Anti-ICE rioting and intimidation campaign, culminating in the shooting deaths of Good and Pretti, and how the discourse rolled out of those two shootings. I'll point to the evident entrenched denial of basic civil rights in Blue strongholds in the Pacific Northwest, where organized gangs of thugs abuse disfavored religious and political minorities while the authorities pointedly refuse to intervene unless it is to protect those thugs from reprisal. I would point to the Kamloops graves scam and the subsequent rash of church arsons. I'd point to church invasions being pushed as a "protest" tactic, and the apparent reluctance to enforce black-letter federal law against such tactics. I'll point to the ascendence of the DSA types within the Democrat Party, and the complicity of their leaders and influencers in all of these problems and many more besides.

I'll also point out that the arguments made in an attempt to keep a lid on these things are deployed when convenient, but cannot be undeployed when desired. We're Wrenching, here: it was very important that we address "right wing extremism" when a campaign ad put a crosshair on a congressperson's district and then she was publicly shot, or when it was obviously necessary to purge Red Tribers from every major social media platform, and we debated those ideas here at length. Now it's very important that we remember that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me, and the very idea of policing public expressions of murderous pseudo-ethnic hatred is beyond the pale because muh freeze peach. Maybe some people still take these arguments seriously; there's a sucker born every minute, after all. For those who have more memory than a goldfish, though, it seems to me that the ability of these arguments to moderate conflict simply goes away and never comes back. Certainly it ought to.

You all predicted riots and burning and political violence after the Roe V. Wade repeal, after the 2024 elections, after pretty much every red tribe victory.

I am not a plurality, and I'm pretty sure I didn't predict riots and political violence specifically after Roe V. Wade appeal, much less a 1,000 year Christian Reich. I have predicted that the violence is going to get worse, and it seems to me that it is getting worse. You can admit it or not, but there is now a faction inside the Overton window that is explicitly endorsing murder as a viable political tactic, not in some hypothetical, abstract future but specifically in reference to actual murders and attempted murders that have actually happened. You can, as some here do, pretend that this is not a serious problem, right up until it's your champions catching bullets. And when that happens, what will you say when Blues here discuss how grassroots political extremism and popular support for murder as a political solution is a problem, actually, and I reply exclusively with @magicalkittycat quotes?

I first read you predicting catastrophic political violence and the disintegration of American society 6 years ago on reddit, and I'm still here in 2026 reading it after none of these things have come to pass.

There's a lot of ruin in a nation, but it appears to me that the trend is consistent, and as noted above, you appear to be ignoring a whole lot of the stuff you argue isn't happening. Conflict resolution mechanisms continue to degrade, conflict continues to escalate. Race relations are much worse now than they were ten years ago, in ways that appear to me strongly resistant to the standard liberal arguments for comity and toleration. Tribal relations are much worse now than they were ten years ago, again in ways that liberalism has no real answer for. The Democratic party is now entering its own political civil war between a corrupt relatively-centrist establishment and grassroots ideological extremists, which will be actualized in the upcoming elections and in the policy consequences of those elections. I do not think that this will result in an increased likelihood of peace and prosperity for all, but I'm ready to stand corrected.

And when that happens, what will you say when Blues here discuss how grassroots political extremism and popular support for murder as a political solution is a problem, actually, and I reply exclusively with @magicalkittycat quotes?

I think my favorite genre of argument is this exact sort of "you're being hypocritical" accusation, without acknowledging whether or not the accuser is themselves being hypocritical.

If you want to use my arguments against "blue tribers" feel free to, I do it all the time on other sites like Reddit. But if you do so without using them against "red tribers" then you are simply a hypocrite as well and are not making an actual point, you are just telling on yourself. You would turn into a Frieren demon who is simply repeating words without meaning, where they are pure weapons and nothing more.

I would also point to the popular reaction to the murder of Kirk and the attempts to murder Trump within Blue Tribe, and how these reactions compare to Blue Tribe's previous positions on how speech should be policed. I'll point to the endemic calls for the assassination of Musk, the organized vandalism and arson campaigns against Tesla dealerships and even (IIRC) individuals' personally-owned vehicles, and how major national politicians winked and nodded along rather than taking a stand against their mob. I'll point to Mangione's killing of the United Health CEO, and the obscene public reaction to the killing from grassroots Blues generally. I'll point to the continued Anti-ICE rioting and intimidation campaign, culminating in the shooting deaths of Good and Pretti, and how the discourse rolled out of those two shootings.

And I'll point to the mass unrest after Trump was elected in 2016, I'll point to the dozens of harebrained plots to assassinate Obama, I'll point to Sandy Hook and Columbine and Parkland and the Boston marathon bomber and mass protests around Occupy Wall Street and Gabby Giffords and Congressional baseball shooting and Bernie Bro socialists and Tree of life shooting and Arbery shooting and Charleston church shooting and a hundred other shootings and the Malheur ranch and Lavoy Finicum and the Tea Party and MAGA and and and...

The people celebrating the violence were always there. You just have a weaponized social media feed designed to shove outrage porn down your throat 24/7. You should know better! Listen to Mr. Rogers, not twitter.

I would point to the Kamloops graves scam and the subsequent rash of church arsons.

British Columbia, the 51st state?

much less a 1,000 year Christian Reich

From your triumphalism in the wake of Trump taking power and passing a barrage of laws:

I disagree that it's foolish; I think Blue Tribe's dominance was largely built on propaganda, and I think the decay of the propaganda apparatus is why Blue Tribe dominance is now collapsing. This has been my thesis for near-on to a decade now. I think my side will win because, to put it as succinctly as possible, we are sufficiently closer to base reality that we need propaganda a lot less, and our lack of the Progress narrative means we have less need to rule people and can ask less from those we do need to rule.

Christianity is regaining a great deal of the cultural respect it lost over the last generation. It's regaining this respect not by playing "political hardball", but by having its predictions validated by subsequent events, and by maintaining its principles in contrast to the example of its opposition. Sexual continence and self-control were a hard sell in the 90s; now we have OnlyFans and online dating and a generation of intense porn consumption and cratering relationship rates to do the argumentative heavy-lifting for us, to give an example on one of the relevant axes. We believe we genuinely have a better way of living, and it requires only our willful action and communal cooperation, not federal law or corporate funding. The further the cultural consensus moved away from us, the more obvious and undeniable the benefits our faith offers become, even by the materialist metrics of the World. We have stable marriages, children, even, amusingly enough, higher sexual satisfaction. We can forgive and turn the other cheek; we can offer a hand up to a defeated foe, we can restrain ourselves in the heat of the moment. We have a basis for charity, in all senses of the word, to the point that the pagan Right routinely mocks us for our pacifism, for doing nothing, for being cucked. And yet, we can also fight fiercely, when that seems necessary and prudent.

Deus vult!

Meanwhile, and I hope you can set aside the partisanship and appreciate the delicious irony in this, your president decided to launch another war in the Middle East. After you swore up and down that Bush was a uniparty Democrat, actually, and Trump was the first genuine Republican. Undoubtedly your arguments around the base reality of low inflation, killer economic growth and glorious victory over pathetic Iranians will resonate with the electorate.

I can also see the seeds of your doomposting for the 2028-2032 cycle in the complaints about the DSA, as if they're somehow a discontinuous break from Bernie Sanders and the Squad.

I have predicted that the violence is going to get worse, and it seems to me that it is getting worse.

You're the Shepard scale of predicting worsening violence. When measurable violence (homicides, rioting, general unrest, school shootings) decrease, you turn to cherry-picked singular incidents and say actually they're worse than anything that happened in 2022, which was worse than anything that came before it, which was worse than anything since the 70s. On the contrary, I see a continuous trendline of violence in America that has always been there. Maybe the 90s truly were some magical time as the nation basked in the glory of triumphing over the Soviets; I suppose I wouldn't know. But at least for my experience, it's been more or less the same.

And when that happens, what will you say when Blues here discuss how grassroots political extremism and popular support for murder as a political solution is a problem, actually, and I reply exclusively with @magicalkittycat quotes?

By all means, feel free. Fight on, brave culture warrior.

We can forgive and turn the other cheek; we can offer a hand up to a defeated foe, we can restrain ourselves in the heat of the moment. We have a basis for charity, in all senses of the word, to the point that the pagan Right routinely mocks us for our pacifism, for doing nothing, for being cucked. And yet, we can also fight fiercely, when that seems necessary and prudent.

Deus vult!

The Democratic party is now entering its own political civil war between a corrupt relatively-centrist establishment and grassroots ideological extremists

Hmm. We had Bernie Sanders v. Clinton and Sanders and Warren v. Biden, we've had a 'civil war' (such drama!) between the extreme and the center in both parties for the last 14 years, and you're trying to rile yourself up into pretending that the DSAs are some new unique communist threat to the Republic to rationalize a vote for jay dee. While I lack most of the virtues of a good Christian, I'll avoid talking about the 'corruption' (an utterly meaningless word at this point, along with communist and fascist) of the current admin.

I do not think that this will result in an increased likelihood of peace and prosperity for all, but I'm ready to stand corrected.

You aren't, though.

Your bar for being corrected is that a country of 350 million people have no mentally ill whackjobs for the next 4 years. Someone's going to shoot up a school, someone's going to do something stupid like zerg rush the white house security gates or fly a drone grenade into Trump's ballroom or shoot Kamala if it looks like she's going to win. Then you'll crow that violence is getting worse, the country is going to the dogs and liberalism is a failure.

Meanwhile, by your own admission, you and your family live good lives. Me and my family live good lives. Hundreds of millions of people live in peace and prosperity, and they would live in happiness too if they could lay off the outrage porn and touch grass.

Maybe the 90s truly were some magical time as the nation basked in the glory of triumphing over the Soviets; I suppose I wouldn't know.

If you are looking at violence in general, the 1990's were the tail end of the massive crime wave that began in the 1970's - the US murder rate peaked in 1991. If you are looking at American political violence in particular, there was Ruby Ridge, Waco etc. at the start of the decade and the Oklahoma city bombing in the middle of it. OKC killed 168 people, which on most counts is more than the total number of Americans killed by domestic (i.e. not Islamist) political violence so far in the 21st century in a single incident.

In the UK, the 1990's was the tail end of the Troubles (the IRA ceasefire was in 1996, but the last big bombing was by dissident Republicans in 1998), as well as the tail end of the crime wave. If you grew up in a British city in the 1990's, the present day is safer in a way that most people can feel viscerally.

Modern media dynamics mean that a single incident with zero deaths can be the current thing (particularly in the partisan filter bubble on the victim's side) for weeks.

I may not be as "Blackpilled" as FacelessCraven but I do think you are being a bit unfair to them here when examples like "the mass unrest after Trump was elected in 2016". "Boston marathon bomber", and "The Congressional Baseball shooting" would seem to support their position rather than refute it.

Recall that Tsarnaev got the teen heart-throb treatment from MSNBC and Rolling Stone, Hodgkinson had a list of the House Freedom Caucus members in his pocket when he died, and that during the "unrest" surrounding Trump's election businesses weren't boarding up their windows because they were worried about Trump voters might do might do but rather their opposition would.

I will set aside the bit where you implied that the mere existence of the Tea-Party and MAGA are affronts to civilization of similar moral weight to a mass shooting. Something about Arson Murder and Jaywalking.

Here is what I think is happening. I think that Democrats and Republicans have a fundamentally different relationship with violence and very different ideas about when/where it is appropriate. The former views violence as a thermostat that can be dialed up an down to suit the situation, where the latter views it more as a switch or circuit breaker. I think this leads a lot of Democrats to mistake reluctance to engage in certain tactics for a lack of capacity, and I think that a lot of the consternation surrounding incidents like Kenosha, Jan 6th, and the ICE raids on Minneapolis, has stemmed from Democrats who had convinced themselves that the right would never "punch back" having that belief falsified.

Here is what I think is likely to happen. I think that if current trends continue, calls for violence against Jews, Christians, Transphobes, suspected Trump voters, and other "undesirables" will become an increasingly normal part of living in a Democrat controlled state or municipality. Actual violence will also become increasingly normal but get dismissed as a nothingburger or simply "the price of doing business". Eventually one of these perfectly ordinary incidents will cross a line or go viral in some way, and all the rhetoric here on theMotte will be about how everyone is overacting the switch will have been flipped, the circuit breaker popped.

I have argued previously that it wasn't the caning of Charles Sumpter that set the United States on the path to civil war but rather the reaction to it, and I see something like that happening here. The threat to the union is not that in a country of 350 million people he have a handful of mentally ill whack-jobs. The true threat to the union is that there seems to be a sizeable portion of those 350 million people who want the whack-jobs to succeed.

I may not be as "Blackpilled" as FacelessCraven

Is that what Fc stands for? Is FacelessCraven a phone autocorrect or a boo light?

"the mass unrest after Trump was elected in 2016". "Boston marathon bomber", and "The Congressional Baseball shooting" would seem to support their position rather than refute it.

Their model of the world is that the left and the right have irreconcilable differences, liberalism and tolerance is a failure, and American society is disintegrating as partisanship increases and everyone's goal becomes to hurt the outgroup as much as possible. He started beating this drum especially hard during the Floyd riots, and hasn't stopped beating it as the violence has subsided and in fact argues that violence has increased since then.

My model of the world is that there has always been a basal level of violence and unrest in American society, and that the modern period is not particularly unremarkable. My position is that things are largely good, liberalism is not a failure and the majority of people are not partisan hacks or outgroup harmers. There has been unrest and discontent with spikes here and there more or less from the early 2000s to today. And partisanship and unrest have decreased from the pandemic through today.

I will set aside the bit where you implied that the mere existence of the Tea-Party and MAGA are affronts to civilization of similar moral weight to a mass shooting.

You shouldn't. You should look at where FC groups DSA members running competitive primaries with political violence. This fails to support his thesis in two ways - firstly, that strain of leftism struggling against the centrist core has been there at least since 2008 and is not indicative of violence increasing in 2026, and secondly that it perfectly mirrors populist movements on the right like the Tea-Party and MAGA trying to primary the establishment from the extremes. Presenting this as some new, dangerous phenomenon is ludicrous.

I have argued previously that it wasn't the caning of Charles Sumpter that set the United States on the path to civil war but rather the reaction to it, and I see something like that happening here. The threat to the union is not that in a country of 350 million people he have a handful of mentally ill whack-jobs. The true threat to the union is that there seems to be a sizeable portion of those 350 million people who want the whack-jobs to succeed.

And I would argue that if the Floyd riots and clashes in the streets between leftist and rightist agitators didn't trigger a civil war, if the Charlie Kirk assassination didn't trigger a civil war, what do you think would? I wouldn't have wanted to see the reaction on the right to Trump being assassinated on live TV in Butler, but I still believe the backlash would have been the left facing a 2008-tier election loss rather than a shooting war in the streets. When the whack-jobs get their way, the center is repulsed and the pendulum swings the other way.

Their model of the world is that the left and the right have irreconcilable differences, liberalism and tolerance is a failure, and American society is disintegrating as partisanship increases and everyone's goal becomes to hurt the outgroup as much as possible.

Is their model necessarily wrong? It seems trivially true to me that the left and right have increasingly divergent views on basic foundational questions like the existence of free will and what constitutes "basic human dignity" or "a legitimate authority". Disagreements on which the Covid lockdowns and "Summer of Love" threw into stark relief by rendering such disagreement immediately relevant to millions of peoples' livelihoods.

I don't think you (or anyone else here on theMotte for that matter) really grasps just how much damage was done to the social fabric in those 3 months between March and June of 2020 and how the memory of those three months is coloring current relations.

You shouldn't. You should look at where FC groups DSA members running competitive primaries with political violence. This fails to support his thesis in two ways - firstly, that strain of leftism struggling against the centrist core has been there at least since 2008 and is not indicative of violence increasing in 2026, and secondly that it perfectly mirrors populist movements on the right like the Tea-Party and MAGA trying to primary the establishment from the extremes. Presenting this as some new, dangerous phenomenon is ludicrous.

You are misunderstanding the concern, the DSA is not the new phenomenon. Violent radicals seeking to install themselves as the heads of an intellectual vanguard class are as old as leftism itself. The worrying new phenomenon is that wishing death on one's political opponents seems to be increasingly inside the Overton Window. Characters like Hakeem Jeffries, Zohran Mamdani, and Hasan Piker are not some wacky fringe, they're who both "moderate" democrats and the anti-populist right seem to be rallying behind.

As for potential for Civil War, I think the US literally dodged a bullet in Butler PA.

I don't know if it would have triggered a war on it's own but I'd put the odds at something like 1 in 3 which is far higher than I'd like. A lot would depend on what happens next, knowing what we know now about the US Secret Service's performance on the day I think there would be a broad consensus on the right that the "Deep State" had purposefully allowed the shot to occur. As I recall the democrats did not loose the 2008 election, in such a situation i think it would take a deft hand on the part of President Harris to avoid a serious constitutional crisis and I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of OKC or three.

Regarding why Charlie's killing didn't set things off, two big reasons spring to mind. The first is that Charlie wouldn't want that. Second is we had a President and AG who could believably claim that they were committed to bringing his killer to justice.

More comments

We've been agitating for criminal and police reform for years if not decades, and nobody listened until the riots started. We've got two relatively centrist proposals in congress right now unless things have changed since the last time I looked. Unfortunately, if we don't make it outrageous or biased the inertia of the system is too great to actually change anything. Do you think Mitch McConnell would ever have allowed that bill if it weren't for George Floyd and the subsequent reaction?

Maybe another part of the polarization in this country is that you have to dial it up to 11 to ever change anything whatsoever. If the right had listened to us years ago, would we have had the riots we had? Will the right listen to us now on trans rights, or is it going to take a trans woman getting raped or murdered on camera and more rioting before we can do anything about that issue?

I imagine you'll point towards the two attempted Trump assassinations and Charlie Kirk, but I'm unconvinced this is out of the ordinary for a particularly controversial political figure.

I'm somewhat on the fence about Trump (I can't remember any president in my lifetime having actual assassination attempts, however controversial, but presidents have been assassinated before so it's at least not unheard of), but Kirk? No way. It's completely out of the ordinary, hell, completely unheard of as far as I know, for people to go out and murder a political commentator. No matter how reviled that commentator is.

It's completely out of the ordinary, hell, completely unheard of as far as I know, for people to go out and murder a political commentator. No matter how reviled that commentator is.

MLK Jr. was murdered.

Specifically political commentators, no, but traveling pundits/social media influencers like Charlie Kirk are a relatively new phenomenon. If you think of him as "celebrity who appears in public and tends to draw a lot of crazies," celebrities being attacked and/or murdered is not a new phenomenon.

There was the radio guy murdered by neo Nazis

Violence has decreased broadly since the pandemic.

Murders have decreased, but political violence has increased.

You all predicted riots and burning and political violence after the Roe V. Wade repeal

Nicholas Roske, was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home in June 2022 carrying a gun, knife, and burglary tools. He later admitted he intended to kill Kavanaugh

Crisis pregnancy centers (anti-abortion counseling centers) were vandalized or firebombed

Nationwide protests occurred after the decision. State police in Arizona had to deploy tear gas to disperse rioters. LA police did same. More pregnancy centers were attacked.

The left, broadly, killed the most popular young conservative in America that was the head of the movement.

The left, broadly, have come within an inch of killing a sitting President.

Until the day I die, I will read comments like yours and remember not only those two actions but the constant riots over the last several years over police shootings and well whatever, we don’t have to detail the post Covid collapse of civil society.

Yea - the right did Jan 6th … whoopty doo.

I understand society hasn’t collapsed, but if it does, it’ll come from whatever in the hell is happening to the left, here in the US, and abroad, with our European allies.

Maybe Japan and SKorea will be courageous enough to save us this time.

Was Kirk actually that load-bearing? This is one of those bubble things, maybe, but I never thought he was all that influential. Jordan Peterson seemed to have more pull. The big church groups had more sway than anyone. This was in the Midwest.

Bubble or not, I really disagree that “the left, broadly” did either of those things. A leftist murdered Kirk; a random asshole tried to kill Trump. Blaming “the left” is about as solid as hand-wringing about stochastic terrorism. I believe in individual responsibility.

I really disagree that “the left, broadly” did either of those things.

The broad and horrifyingly ghoulish reaction, including in rationalist spaces, is doing a lot of work in establishing the "broadly."

Sure, one individual did it. Millions of cretins cheered for it and seemed to see nothing wrong with that, and seem to have no fear that anyone's going to do the same to Piker (who is a substantial worse person) or anyone else.

If someone offed Piker, I certainly wouldn't mourn him as a person, and I'm not convinced I could even summon much care for the principle. But I wouldn't blare a cheer across social media celebrating an increase in political violence and know that everyone that matters would have my back, either.

It is so, so easy to just... not say things. And so many people failed, horribly.

If Kirk had been struck by lightning, the left would have celebrated in much the same way. Would you then accuse "the left, broadly" of having electrocuted him? Are all right-wingers whose take on George Floyd was a sneering "whatever he died of, good riddance" to be blamed for his murder? I sympathize with the idea that celebrating an assassination should be taboo in a way that celebrating other kinds of death isn't - the possible second-order effects are obvious - but I think speaking in terms of collective guilt is a bridge and a half too far.

If Kirk had been struck by lightning, the left would have celebrated in much the same way.

I think that's the point. They wanted him to die, and they celebrated when he did.

Nobody would've cared if George Floyd died by lightning. They didn't really care when he died by cop. The right only cared when it became outrage source #1 in 2020 and nobody could escape it.

George Floyd was a convicted criminal, drug user. Charlie Kirk was a conservative who said things the left didn't like, but by most all accounts was a decent man, even to his political enemies.

The distinction here is that the left widely celebrated the death of a decent person that they politically disagreed with, and that this sort of reaction is not just limited to Charlie Kirk. There are entire subreddits dedicated to rejoicing at the deaths of people they politically disagree with. Members of the left will celebrate the death of their own parents if their parents are too politically dissident for their liking.

More comments

If Kirk had been struck by lightning, the left would have celebrated in much the same way. Would you then accuse "the left, broadly" of having electrocuted him? Are all right-wingers whose take on George Floyd was a sneering "whatever he died of, good riddance" to be blamed for his murder?

No. But this to me symbolises one of the reasons the Left and the Right seem to talk past each other. The idea that people can see any equivalence between Charlie Kirk the family man & debater, and George Floyd is obscene and incomprehensible to me. George Floyd, the home invader. George Floyd, the man who put a shotgun pistol to a pregnant woman's belly. George Floyd, the man who spent five years in jail for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, the man who died while being arrested for trying to pass off counterfeit currency, out of his skull on fentanyl.

I agree completely that people shouldn't die while being arrested / be murdered by the police, and that investigation and punishment of the police officer was appropriate. I agree that it's unseemly to celebrate people's death no matter who they were and what they'd done. But the fact remains that Charlie Kirk was an innocent man and George Floyd was scum. To me, the fact that the Left considers actively celebrating the death of a man for the crime of being right wing in public to be remotely comparable to not caring that a career criminal is dead demonstrates a vast and hideous chasm of moral divergence.

EDIT:

Claims that George Floyd pointed a gun at a pregnant woman during a 2007 robbery are false; court records show no evidence that the victim was pregnant (emphasis mine)

Oh goodie! Thank you, Politifact. I was worried there for a minute that something bad had happened, you know?

EDIT EDIT: what is known is that the six men with Floyd overpowered a single woman and beat her in the "head and side areas" to make her shut up so they could rob her in peace, Floyd's pistol to her abdomen apparently not having brought the message home: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/meme-spreads-wrong-photo-details-in-floyd-criminal-case/

More comments

Yeah, I originally included a sentence about how a leftist murdered Kirk, and the left was way too fucking enthusiastic about it. I absolutely hate the responses that flooded social media. I will stand by the distinction, but it doesn’t mean I’m happy about it.

My wife is one of the most empathetic people I know. I don’t even think she would shoot someone in self-defense. But she will say, with a worried expression, that she wishes Trump had died at that rally. It’s unbelievable. Ingroup, outgroup, fargroup.

A not-Trump GoP candidate would still have beaten Kamala like a drum and, after instituting a state cultus of Trump, would then proceed to enact a much more effective agenda. Trump himself has largely failed to crown himself with laurels; a not-Trump candidate taking up the torch would probably have not only tried but succeeded in doing so.

More comments

I don't think "load-bearing" is quite the right word, but at the same time I don't think our resident norms-enjoying Democrats and anti-MAGA Republicans truly appreciate just how popular he was and how badly their reactions to his killing (be that open celebration of it, attempts to downplay it, or Norm McDonald-esque worries about potential blowback) played outside their liberal technocratic bubble.

AIUI, his ground game among young voters was considered very important, but in a way that wasn't really appreciated openly until after his loss.

As someone who is an active participant in their state GOP I was aware of him as the head of TPUSA and occasional guest on various programs, and a feel a bit sad to confess that I had kind of dismissed him as just another talking head/pac-man to be managed.

I didn't become aware of his popularity and wider body of work, until after his death. Specifically I found out that had been shot via a text message from a family member who has never been particularly political, and was surprised that said family member even knew who he was.

My middle school aged son, who has never shown any interest in politics whatsoever, knew who he was, had seen some of his videos, and thought he was a "pretty cool guy".

Blaming “the left” is about as solid as hand-wringing about stochastic terrorism. I believe in individual responsibility.

We handwrung about stochastic terrorism for the better part of a decade. Federal and national corporate policies covering vast swathes of our lives were set, and large amounts of meanness coordinated, based on arguments fairly summarized as "handwringing over stochastic terrorism". "Hostile environment" law and policy was and is given force of law based on arguments significantly weaker than "handwringing over stochastic terrorism."

I believe that you believe in individual responsibility. But you could not actually coordinate a consensus around "individual responsibility" before, and to the extent that "individual responsibility" carries the day in the current circumstance, it will be because that is the argument of maximal convenience to Blue Tribe at this moment. This will have consequences, and those consequences will be profoundly degenerate in obviously-foreseeable ways, chief among them that you, personally, are in this moment losing the ability to ever argue the contrary position persuasively ever again, regardless of future circumstances.

I mostly don't write effort posts lately, I've been too busy working on art and raising kiddoes. But one of the ones that languishes in my drafts folder is "Arguments we can have in advance", situations where it is extremely easy to model how the current conversation will evolve given likely future events. This is one of the big conversations we can have in advance. It seems to me that people really ought to give it a try, while there is still the present amount of unburned charity.

What did you think unions protecting their employees meant? Vibes, papers, essays?

Anyways, an opinion writer winning in arbitration with a private company is hardly the most egregious example of union bullshit.

"Our estimates imply that collective bargaining rights led to a substantial increase in violent incidents of misconduct among sheriffs’ offices, relative to police departments."

Do you think this is a just outcome for this incident?

I think the arbitrator makes a compelling case.

If you think this is a just outcome, are you comfortable with people generalizing the logic behind this outcome into a set of rules you will then accept living under?

I am not even sure what this means. I expect we disagree about what the rules are here that you are suggesting generalizing.

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