site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25117 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I genuinely don't understand the right-winger position here. What's so funny?
I asked before, and the answers were something to the effect that Canadian citizens, in their personal capacity, are much too smug online and look down on Americans as uncivilized boors, which is unbearable since Canada is a small dog and America is a Big Lion, so the Lion's gotta do what it does. This is simply childish. But fine, I can acknowledge childishness. What I don't get is why you go out of your way to misconstrue the Canadian perception here. Do you really have no theory of mind for other people believing that their nation ought to be treated with dignity by foreigners at least on the official level? Is this an extreme case of Hottentot morality?

And no, their internal issues (like ethnic relations or immigration policies) are not a carte blanche for you, outsiders to treat their state with contempt and expect them to join in on the fun. Try to think about this by analogy: do you feel that any nation is entitled to offer you unequal treaties and expect them be signed, just because you have fat people in Walmart/fentanyl problem/school shootings/BLM/wokes or whatever you believe is problematic and shameful? This is a pretty asinine approach, right? OK, now consider that people in other countries have a similar philosophy. This is called patriotism.

Speaking of their perception, this is how Trump's terms look up there. This is rubbing it in, I can half-believe it was written to be indignantly rejected because he just hates Canada for some reason, maybe precisely because he's a boor and feels status anxiety. But seeing his supporters' takes, I'm not sure it wasn't done with sincere cluelessness.

Then again, the median position now seems to be even simpler: "we can afford to rape them so why the hell not". The stuff about "not a real country" is, of course, veeeery Russia-Ukraine too. But people mostly don't believe their nations ought to have a "real locus", a telos, or anything like this, they just want sovereignty, respect, and the ability to make deals in their self-interest.

Nations can choose whether they are real or not. Unreasonable external hostility is one way to forge a nation. Ukraine is more real now than it was in 2021, which was more real than in 2013, which was more real than in 2003 or 1989 – even in the Russian eyes. Maybe Canada will earn its reality too, reality it traded away a generation ago by signing what became NAFTA, assuming it's worth nothing since no unreasonable hostility is forthcoming. John Turner foresaw this exact outcome that @Shakes celebrates today. Canadians remember Turner-Mulroney debates for a genteel dunk on a relatively minor domestic mishap by Turner. Maybe they'll remember his lines in this one too.

TURNER: I think the Canadian people have a right to know why, when your primary objective was to get unfettered and secured access into the American market, we didn’t get it. Why you didn’t put clauses in to protect our social programs in this negotiation . . . Why did that not happen? Why also did we get a situation where we surrendered our entire energy policy to the United States, something they’ve been trying to achieve since 1956? Why did we abandon our farmers? Why did we open our capital markets so that a Canadian bank can be bought up and we don’t have reciprocity in the American market at all? Why did you remove any ability to control the Canadian ownership of our business? These are questions that Canadians deserve to have an answer to and we have not had an opportunity in six hours to deal with them in the way that would make you come out of your shell. … I happen to believe you have sold us out. I happen to believe that, once you— Once any region— Once any country yields its economic levers— Once a country yields its energy— Once a country yields its agriculture— Once a country yields itself to a subsidy war with the United States— On terms of definition then, the political ability of this country to remain as an independent nation, that is lost forever and that is the issue of this election, sir.

… TURNER: I admire your father for what he did. My grandfather moved into British Columbia. My mother was a miner’s daughter there. We are just as Canadian as you are, Mr. Mulroney, but I will tell you this. You mentioned 120 years of history. We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States and will reduce us, I am sure, to a colony of the United States because when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.

MULRONEY: Mr. Turner, the document is cancellable on six months notice. Be serious. Be serious.

TURNER: Cancellable? You are talking about our relationship with the United States—

MULRONEY: A commercial document that is cancellable on six months notice.

TURNER: Commercial document? That document relates to treaty. It relates to every facet of our lives. It’s far more important to us than it is to the United States.

Speaking of their perception, this is how Trump's terms look up there.

This is a pile of steaming garbage ai slop (made by ChatGPT specifically, it's so blindingly obvious) tweeted by a foreigner who also has no connection to Canada or the USA.

Needless to say I shouldn't have to waste any effort debunking this because it's just a heap of garbage.

Edit: If you want even more confirmation, the URL at the bottom of the image is fake. Fabricated. Made up. Lies. Deception. Falsehood.

The "attack on the French language" thing is particularly transparently dishonest from Carney. Trump's devastating alpha strike on Quebecois identity is... not requiring US streaming services to promote French-Canadian content.

Didn't the US identify bilingual-labelling laws as a non-tariff barrier that they wanted removed?

The NYT article on the topic did not mention this. It calls out the laws promoting Canadian online content, and says, "A person with direct knowledge of the talks said that the American side was flexible on this point, and did not make any asks regarding the French language explicitly. A Canadian counterpart said that, even if that were the case, the topic was still being debated until the last minute before the talks broke down on Friday."

So, maybe? Maybe not? I would think that if NYT had solid confirmation that the US went after bilingual labeling laws, they would have included it. Of course, that article is also a snapshot in time concerning the information they had at that moment.

I think one of the problems here is that the US side isn't talking about the talks that broke down, and doesn't see why they might need to. In particular, nobody is pushing back on the claim by Carney that there was a last-minute bait-and-switch from the US side, with various media outlets (admittedly probably all relying on the same anonymous source) saying that this was because Commerce Secretary Lutnick took over the reins from USTR Greer.

Based on Trump's MO going back to his real estate days, I think we can assume that there was a bait-and-switch from the US side - it is less clear whether or not it was a planned dick move as part of "tough" negotiating tactics or whether it was unintentional chaos as a result of divisions within the administration. But all we have to go by in terms of what the bait-and-switch was about is Carney's talking points (which I assume are selective and biased, because politics) and various pro-Canadian poasters amplifying them. Trump could say (or could get his people to say) that of course the US doesn't have a problem with Quebec preserving its language and culture and try to play divide-and-rule with Quebec the way is (ineptly) trying to do with Alberta, but he didn't.

This round of talks began with a unilateral escalation by the US (the various proclamations of 20th July) and the only intelligible demand the US has made on substance is that Canada reverse the retaliatory measure they put in place after the previous unilateral escalation from the US side, including steel and aluminium tariffs which the US said were not negotiable and other tariffs which were announced as a threat to force Canada to address a non-existent fentanyl problem and then TACOed.

So the US does not have a public negotiating position here. And if the bait-and-switch theory is correct, they haven't communicated a stable non-public negotiating position to the Canadians either.* It might be the case that normalcy could be restored if the Canadians agreed to end the retaliatory measures and accept the steel and aluminium tariffs, but we don't know and Carney has now said that he doesn't either. As far as I can see based on Trump and his supporters' social media posts, the actual MAGA theory of the case is that the correct process is that Trump commands and Carney obeys, and that the real problem is Canadian insistence on LARPing as a sovereign state.

* The actual US negotiating position in this case needs to be non-public because the Trump administration is abusing emergency powers to impose the tariffs. Everyone on both sides of the border knows that the legally colourable US-law justifications for the tariffs in the official White House proclamations have little or nothing to do with the real reasons they are being imposed, but can't say so.

Trump could say (or could get his people to say) that of course the US doesn't have a problem with Quebec preserving its language and culture and try to play divide-and-rule with Quebec the way is (ineptly) trying to do with Alberta, but he didn't.

He has essentially said this on Truth Social

Ordinarily, it would be easy to believe that the American government just doesn't care that much about bilingualism beyond seeing it as annoyance that is nonetheless a red line for Canada. It's the sort of thing a Canadian PM looking to win in Quebec would emphasize.

But people in Canada believe it (or, at least, prefer to trust Carney) because it's easy to fit into a narrative of divide and conquer in light of Trump's annexation comments and his escalation of tariffs and unreliability.

He has essentially said this on Truth Social.

Full text of post

I would never interfere with Canadians speaking French! In fact, I have never even thought of doing such a stupid thing. This lie was made up by a weak and ineffective Prime Minister in an attempt to gain political support, which he has totally lost, from the people of Quebec. I love French Canadians! President DONALD J. TRUMP

The image being made with ChatGPT has no relation to the veracity of the claims in it. Indeed it's a point in its favor: LLMs are smarter than Trump, and Trump posts a lot of AI slop (such as his map-painting exercises) and outright falsehoods (eg about Canadian unemployment or oil stats) anyway. If it were just a compilation of his own claims, it'd be worse.

  • -11

The whole “Trump is an idiot” argument is tired at this point. Someone cannot achieve what he has achieved being an idiot. He might be wrong. He certainly isn’t a rationalist or careful when it comes to what he says. But thinking someone who has accomplished about 1000x whatever your life has accomplished is an idiot is laughable.

Just because a lot of people haven’t achieved what Trump has (… is there some reason why I should want to?) doesn’t mean ordinary people haven’t achieved things Trump is clearly incompetent at. If money was all I cared about, I’d do gay pornography and let every man have a go at my asshole or enter into organized crime. Because I’m actually a Bible believing Catholic though, my spiritual wealth I’d wager is far greater than his will be in the afterlife.

I haven’t checked but I imagine porn actually doesn’t pay that well

According to Ron White, gay people get 5x the amount of money. Take that for whatever it’s worth.

is there some reason why I should want to?

Respectfully, I call cope. What is it Trump has achieved that normal people wouldn’t want? Becoming President? Large family? Extreme wealth? Fame? You may not want these things but they are among the most common fantasies in the world.

Because I’m actually a Bible believing Catholic though, my spiritual wealth I’d wager is far greater than his will be in the afterlife.

This is a moral judgment masquerading as a value neutral. You think you’re better than Trump because you think he’s going to hell.

Would it be nice to have a billion dollars? Yes. Would I be living all that differently than how I currently am? Not really. All money does for my desire is fuel more of the same. I would think anyone with common sense would get the impression that people who aren’t putting in work to obtain riches would constitute good evidence that their drive to obtain it obviously isn’t that great (i.e. money isn’t what’s primarily driving them). The proposition isn’t that more money isn’t nice, it’s that money isn’t everything; and it’s very difficult for those who have it to understand how anyone could ever be satisfied without it, when they’ve invested all their psychological resources into thinking that’s what makes them happy. Case in point in my own life, my mother came from a rich family and I was spoiled rotten when I was a kid. It still didn’t make me happy.

As I’ve said before. Most people don’t envy fame and fortune. They envy the lives they imagine these people lead. It’s not actually like that. As a matter of fact from my ontology of the world, yes; I am more accomplished than Trump is as a practitioner of the faith. It’s 100% my moral judgment; and the fact that it’s prejudicial doesn’t mean it isn’t also accurate. A person may not buy my theology and that’s fine with me. From my vantage point they’ll get what’s coming to them in the end all the same. It doesn’t make a difference to me. I want to get to Heaven for what I want out life, not so I can enjoy the thought of Trump going to Hell. In that’s sense I’m every bit as selfish about my own interests as Trump is with his. I don’t care one bit if he believes what I do or not. If the fruits of this world outweigh the ones awaiting him on Judgment Day are more important to him, great; then we can both be winners.

Someone cannot achieve what he has achieved being an idiot

Why? Biden could become a President (indeed, beat Trump at a debate!) while in early stages of dementia, so it wouldn't be far-fetched for Trump to achieve more than Biden while being an idiot. And what has he even achieved, except winning the vote, installing his loyalists (often profoundly inept, like Kash Patel or RFK Jr. or Linda McMahon or… then again, your may refuse to acknowledge their ineptitude too) and doing random intense costly actions he can afford because the US is rich and powerful? And as regards winning the vote, the task seems easy enough: just be an unprecedentedly faithful representative of the immense mass of stupid and malicious people underserved by previous candidates, just shitpost more, be a bigger and louder primate. It's not like American democracy demands any kind of moral or intellectual achievement of their leaders. It's vibes, spite, boredom, hubris, petty sadism…

I understand how acknowledging such mechanics behind your political culture might be hard.

thinking someone who has accomplished about 1000x whatever your life has accomplished is an idiot is laughable

Yeah yeah, money talks bullshit walks, reality is that which pays. This is not a philosophy for human beings.

Why? Biden could become a President (indeed, beat Trump at a debate!) while in early stages of dementia

Pandemic era Biden didn't come across as demented. He came across of someone who was still compus mentis when fully awake, but who was too physically frail for the demands of executive leadership (or indeed running an in-person campaign, which he fortunately didn't need to do in 2020 because of the pandemic). This is consistent with what staffers have said about the administration, which is that Biden was lucid for 4-6 hours a day and able to use those hours to prevent a power vacuum appearing that could be filled by someone else.

  1. Biden won via the democratic establishment carrying him to victory. Trump engaged in a hostile takeover. They are not the same.

  2. Biden had no staying power; Trump clearly did.

  3. Re money talks — yeah it’s exactly a philosophy for human beings. Person A accomplished a lot. Person B hasn’t. Person B tries to tear down A to make themselves seem more important. Well, the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

No, pragmatism is a philosophy for economic agents with status anxiety. You're status-anxious to the point you don't even accept any notion of "intelligence" or "correctness" per se, only of success, which supersedes every other dimension. In your logic Idi Amin or Hou Jing must have been highly intelligent, because they achieved victory against far greater odds than Trump. To say nothing of people who had succeeded within largely or entirely non-cognitive fields, or just via being scum in public – Mike Tyson, Tupac Shakur, Kenneth Copeland, and other illustrious Americans. That is "intelligence" of the pudding-eating people, too. Money is intelligence, charisma is intelligence, sexual prowess is intelligence, nepotism is intelligence. Everything is intelligence except intelligence.

The reality is that the peaks of elected political power in the United States are not terribly contested, cognitively speaking. It's not a corporate world with knife fights between execs, and especially not the heavily competitive world of linear employees. Perhaps high-ranking escorts have more g-loaded competition because they need to appeal to paying customers and not the average American voter. As of mid-2020s, it's a human capital wasteland to which you need not a SAT pass but an invite from some pimp donor. The high and mighty "establishment" that crumbled before Trump is made of sexually deviant dysgenic freaks, confused old people with imaginary friends, self-professed hereditary shabbos goys (and those are Grand Elders of the Party, like Schumer and Pelosi)… Does this not strike you as comical? It is not Trump's intellectual achievement that his last challenger from the Establishment was an unlikeable woman with dirty laundry, nominated at the last moment by a spiteful senile old husk, who ran on an unintelligible gibberish platform about "brat" or whatever because nobody had a clue of what to do with her (and even so, she got plenty of votes, just because people voted for the party and against Trump – the bar is on the ground). Crowing about "staying power" contrasted to Biden is hilarious when I see Biden's defense like «Biden was lucid for 4-6 hours a day and able to use those hours to prevent a power vacuum appearing». Did it take a lot of intelligence to just smile and dunk on these squalid creatures before an audience that is starved for ownership and desperately yearns to finally be loyal to some strongman? This is below the level of hereditary monarchies, and close to the level of late USSR.

You don't have any object-level defense for Trump's idiocy. Take, for instance, his insistent bullshitting about "windmills" in China, which is of course the #1 consumer of wind turbines by a light year, not just the biggest producer. There is a cogent argument against subsidies for renewables in the US in particular, but instead Trump consistently spreads very stupid and checkable lies about this issue. Just why? One "charitable" explanation I see is that he simply hates them for a petty personal reason, which is not just "not a rationalist" but outright childish silliness. Another is that he correctly believes his supporters to be natural slaves that need simple slogans and will make excuses for any extent of his dishonesty. The same logic is true of his opponents who now lie about datacenter water use. Trump, of course, lies so much about so many random things that these strategic explanations fail. It's not a grand strategy, it's simply what he does by nature, and what the competition he is in allows. His strategic actions are discussed well enough and I don't expect us to have much common ground here.

Generally, smart people try to lie plausibly and avoid spelling out outright falsehoods, because in the circles where smart people compete, that produces an exploitable weakness if not legal liability. But this is not the world of American big politics. You don't need to be smart to get into the NBA Hall of Fame, nor to be a POTUS, nor to be top 0.1% on OnlyFans. There are other… merits.

Let’s reduce your long post to its merits: intelligence is weakly correlated with success. Thus, success is not an accurate marker of intelligence.

Allegedly smart people who write long posts on the internet love to separate intelligence from success presumably because they have no success but their self worth is tied up in being smart. Putting down “dumb” people who’ve accomplished a great deal is par for the course. But of course most people want success. So why isn’t our poster on the internet successful? They will tell you X, Y, Z (maybe they aren’t anxious about their status). Instead, I think it is a defense mechanism to shield the reality (ie they couldn’t figure out a way to succeed and thus really aren’t all that smart) from their image (ie they are really smart and it’s all of the dumb status strivers who make life difficult for the smart ones).

intelligence is weakly correlated with success

Yes, this is trivially true across different dimensions of success, regardless of how you want to rationalize your support of Trump.
Did you think you're cooking here?

People can compete on anything, there are countless hierarchies of prestige, aptitude and competence. It is possible to leverage intelligence for greater success in a cognitively less demanding field, and it's correlated with other beneficial qualities, so elite performers, swindlers, sex workers, athletes are usually smarter than their mediocre peers, on top of domain-specific excellence. This, however, is not strictly necessary, so you get people like Yao Ming who are just very blessed on the most relevant dimension of endowment. This is most purely expressed in simple sports like sprinting and weight lifting. In fact, a strictly subhuman creature (a dog, a horse or a clanker) can outperform the best humans there.
But intelligence is extremely correlated with success in cognitively demanding fields. Hence, for example, results of SMPY, and I would never insist that some STEM luminary is "dumb actually" – even if he does say or do stupid things or at least things I disagree with; he may have particular reasons for bias, ignorance or feigning them, or I could just be wrong.
Big politics in the US is not a cognitively demanding field, so your argument is nonsensical. For an outgroup example, Gavin Newsom is a highly successful politician, perhaps a future President, does well in podcasts, and he's generally an accomplished man with an Instagram-perfect upper class White family, with a rich dad, just like Trump. His SAT was 960, which is slightly below the median (he can cope about medical reasons but it's bullshit), he has zero interesting thoughts and there's no evidence he's good at administering his domain. In other words, it's possible to be in the top 0.001% of success while being in the bottom 53% of the population intellectually. This is all obvious. This is, in fact, the promise of American dream (or Middle Eastern dream). You don't have to be a genius to succeed. You don't need truth, or knowledge, or any authentic superiority, you just need to grind and hustle and have "chutzpah". Then again, a rug merchant or a pimp, though a simple creature, is acutely aware of human status signals. He understands that the literati may look down on him, so he develops this kind of retarded doctrine about "success" in general.

Trump has no remarkable successes outside big politics. He's a shitty businessman and a so-so entertainer, roughly Vince McMahon tier. His political views are primitive, his object level knowledge of the world is patchy at best, he's incurious, he's repetitive. We have zero evidence to suspect that he's intelligent. It's just this circular insistence that Americans voted for him so he is "successful" so he's "not an idiot", and then you walk in circles like a smug blind pony. Your model doesn't require intelligence to exist at all, as a variable, and you don't believe truth or reality even matter, they are all downstream of "material success". In your book, Perelman is dumber than Trump because he didn't rally retards to elect him and then use this to enrich his corrupt son-in-law. Perelman doesn't even have a son-in-law, what schmuck. Any illiterate Patel with a highway motel mogs him.

More comments

(ie they couldn’t figure out a way to succeed and thus really aren’t all that smart)

Why is your model of the world like that? What is there to «figure out» in success? It's not a puzzle or a math problem. There are many smart people who are lazy or too autistic to socialize or work in person without pain and therefore they don't become elected officials or other types of popular (most «successful») people.

Allegedly smart people who write long posts on the internet love to separate intelligence from success presumably because they have no success but their self worth is tied up in being smart. Putting down “dumb” people who’ve accomplished a great deal is par for the course. But of course most people want success…

The reason I reject this premise is because it implicitly plays into well known failure states of logical thinking. It’s the same reasoning that allows idiots to say things like “Well if you’re an economist and understand the economy so well, why ain’t ya’ rich; HUH?” That’s not how that works. Just because a referee understands the rules of the NBA doesn’t make them an NBA superstar. Or it’s like saying, “If Karl Marx was so smart why aren’t his followers using the materialist conception of history to predict the stock market?”

People want success on their own terms and not everybody is after the same thing. I have the background knowledge certainly to work in occupations that come close to doubling my current annual salary. I’ve spent decades close to people in infosec, I have personally met and went to dinners when I was younger and sat directly at the table and participated (more of a tag along thing than anything else) with people you can currently find in DefCon videos, RSA Conference talks, one who was in the NSA and who’s wife works at the FBI headquarters in Quantico, one of them who’s a veteran software engineer who’s made single paychecks big enough to retire himself for the rest of his life, and others who are still published authors to this day (I remember being at my father’s job when I was younger after said famous public intellectual’s new book just dropped while he was casually working right there in the office next to him, in cases of cardboard boxes and we were encouraged to take one); and I personally stay on top of new developments in the space. So then why don’t I pursue past leads I still have lying around? Desire. I don’t want that as much as I want other things in life. If I had a family to support maybe I would be on that kind of grind. But I personally don’t need a lot to be happy.

Bulverism is a logical fallacy where you assume an opponent's argument is false and explain why they hold that view instead of actually proving why the argument is wrong.

Particularly useful for shutting down criticism of "successful" people because there are countless avenues one can measure success by and find the critic wanting.

More comments

Biden could become a President (indeed, beat Trump at a debate!) while in early stages of dementia

He was also never that smart or studious when his brain was at full power either.

Yeah yeah, money talks bullshit walks, reality is that which pays. This is not a philosophy for human beings.

Respectfully disagreed. I am surrounded IRL by people who reject exactly those simple messages, and whose lives are downward spirals of empty talk, self-delusion, and the rejection of all measurable metrics in favor of declaring as profoundly ethical their bad habits, self-destructive behavior and perpetual failures at even their own stated goals, and who excuse their lies, their parasitic existences and their proselytizing to this complex of self-defeat with words very similar to yours - that human beings needn't accomplish or even do anything to be valuable, and that all those who in fact do things and accomplish things are surely immoral and deserve contempt.

There are probably unhealthy extremes either way, but maxims like

money talks bullshit walks, reality is that which pays

actually form a very healthy philosophy for humans under most circumstances.

and the rejection of all measurable metrics

There are measurable metrics of intelligence, such as IQ and SAT. There are measurable metrics of academic and scientific accomplishment, such as GPA and h-index. There are measurable metrics of managerial performance, such as the KPIs used by the Chinese Communist Party to promote officials, or quarterly returns of a corporation. There are measurable metrics for all kinds of things, but Trump's measurable success is that he could get enough Americans to vote for him twice. The assertion that this metric is a proxy of intelligence is ill-supported. What you try to argue is just slavish worship of power, not some "healthy philosophy".

I'm not saying anything about Trump at all. I'm strictly discussing the maxims you described as unfit for humans, and how I consider them superior to the one actually espoused by many humans.

Would it be more charitable to grant that he has "animal cunning"?

I do jest, but so far you seem to not know what intellectual virtue, exactly, has led Trump to success, only assuming that there must be something.

In particular one can point out that Dase didn't say Trump has always been a moron, only that his 80+ old self is more stupid than LLMs. Most of Trump's self-achieved success has been before that. A rock with the correct words on it can be elected president in a system where power is sufficiently diffused.

Less charitably, there are many factors that can cause one person to be in a better position to achieve things, compounding to a 1000x advantage (measured how?), and intelligence is just one. It doesn't seem laughable that a 100 IQ boor with generational wealth and business connections in USA had achieved 1000x more than a hypothetical provincial well-read 120 IQ Russian twice his younger.

It does seem laughable that a 100 IQ boor with generational wealth could basically be the most important person in the world for over a decade. There are tons of idiots born into money and connections. None have leveraged it like Trump. That suggests he isn’t a 100 IQ boob.

And the broader point is that when one person has had that level of success, his detractors better have similar level of success before they call him stupid. It’s like the idiots calling Musk dumb.

It does seem laughable that a 100 IQ boor with generational wealth could basically be the most important person in the world for over a decade.

Most important in the world is credit to US, not to any particular president. Most important in the country? Many kings had accomplished that without any effort simply by being heirs to a stable hereditary monarchy.

You seem to ascribe some additional moral protection to intelligence that you don't afford other virtues. So when someone is successful, it must have been intelligence? No, there are plenty of other factors, including, yes, sheer dumb being the right-shaped person at the right place in the right time.

I'll continue to call a king naked when he is naked instead of cringing from it in some performative show of humility, "well he's king, so he must have some good reason behind this, or he wouldn't be king!". Your way is just not being able to point out things about anyone famous for any reason because no one here is that famous.

You must realize there is a marked difference between being born the heir to the throne and accomplishing what Trump accomplished?

And of course there are other virtues, etc. I’m just saying you don’t get the top of the top by being an idiot.

A lot of your argument's weight hinges on obscuring "what Trump has accomplished" behind vague superlatives like "getting to the top of the top".

For the record, I don't agree that POTUS is such a height of power as you imply, either. As I said, its power is mostly the power of the US, which Trump can't take credit for. Any random tinpot dictator in a shithole country, who rules for life and at whose word countless detractors go to prison or disappear, is more "the top of the top" than Trump. I grant that you don't get there by being an idiot. You also don't get to any of the numerous unelected posts between which the power of the US government is diffused by being an idiot.

Getting to the post of POTUS while LLMs are smarter than you (this is Dase, "LLMs are smarter than X" is not the same as calling X retarded as far as I can tell of him) is not something that requires outstanding intellect. It requires mostly other things, and if you're literally a clinical idiot then it's unlikely you have those things, and most of the time a president is not going to be stupid. But it's not a requirement.

Yet the image is still chock full of falsehoods. I wonder why you never addressed that point?

Just to be clear I don’t celebrate Canada’s dependence on the US as if this is a soccer match and I cheer my side to win. I think of Canada as a problem to be managed albeit minor. I think the Canadian’s own self-delusions make this a harder problem. Some will say that it’s Trump and the Americans straining this relationship but it’s my experience that the Canadians are far more delusional about reality and unwilling to be reasonable.

China does not get to build up a proxy state under our neighbor's roof, and our neighbor does not get to host them without sanctions and consequences from us.

And no, their internal issues (like ethnic relations or immigration policies) are not a carte blanche for you, outsiders to treat their state with contempt and expect them to join in on the fun.

The Monroe Doctrine says all foreign powers must stay out of the hemisphere. China and India are trying to sink their claws into Canada, and so is Europe. No, they are not allowed. Canada can have self-determination, or they can rely on the US, but they cannot become a vassal of a foreign power and claim sovereignty while doing it.

Sovereign is he who makes the exception, and Canada is not in the position to be making them, never mind asking for them.

The Monroe Doctrine says all foreign powers must stay out of the hemisphere. China and India are trying to sink their claws into Canada, and so is Europe. No, they are not allowed.

I was told that Russia operating under the exact same logic was being Literally Hitler.

China does not get to build up a proxy state under our neighbor's roof

Don't lie at least to yourself. China is a pretext for territorial aggression against Canada. They were plenty compliant with your aggression for years. It's just never enough if you believe you can take the whole thing.

Manifest Destiny is sorely delayed.

Fifty Four Forty in 1840s. Fumbling away Baja after the Mexican American War. The project to connect Alaska in the Northwest, now 150 years in the making. Letting Cuba go independent instead of annexing it like we should have. All of these should be corrected.

China is the reason to take action today, because they are at the gates and there is no more time to delay, but the desire has been there all along.

They are not "at the gates", they are in the South China Sea, annexing Canada or Cuba or Venezuela will do absolutely nothing to stop their expansion there if they will it, and it doesn't even look like Trump wants to stop it.

But speaking of, here's how Sun Yat-Sen, the father of both Chinese Republics, saw the desirable future from 1917:

Under the principle of Pan-Asianism, Japan and China can together develop the natural resources in the West of the Pacific, while under the Monroe Doctrine the United States can unify authority in the East of that ocean. Each should confine herself to her own field; then there will be no conflict whatsoever. By a concerted effort of these three Powers disarmament might some day be affected, and, going one step further, permanent peace of the world secured. This would not be to the benefit of China alone. Should China follow this as the guiding principle of her diplomacy, she would completely eliminate any possible cause of national extinction.

Would you accept these terms? Or is there still some interest in meddling on the Asian side of the Pacific, with Canada somehow a stepping stone to this goal?

this is how Trump's terms look up there

The source at the bottom - https://globalnews.ca/news/12026323/canada-trade-tariff-demands/us/ - redirects me to a weirdly-photoshopped image of a guy in his underwear. Removing the "us/" gets me to a normal 404 page. Neither URL is in archive.org. Searching for phrases from the purported headline of the source just gets me URLs of a hundred other people speculating about what looks like an AI hallucination. I can't entirely argue with "how Trump's terms look up there", because the tweet does have 10,000 likes, but I am kind of curious about what Trump's terms look like up there to people working from actual sources. Got any of those (actual sources, or reactions to actual sources, or ideally both)?

CBC is probably a pretty good place to start.

The oddest thing to me is the repeated insistence that Canada will be the 51st state, when Canada would clearly be states 51-61.

That would irreversibly destroy the American Republic. 22 Canadian Senator and that many votes in the electoral college would ruin us. I'd rather the dissolution of the US compared to being chained to that anchor.

In fact I'd go the other way and make them a territory. They can have non-voting Congressional representatives and nothing more. Cold Puerto Rico.

It's a humiliation ritual. Canada as a single state would not disrupt elections for Republicans too much.

Though you know. I would like to see our dear based conservative Mottizens make the case that Canadians are inherently a slave race without telos, and thus get no votes at all. And cite X frying my brain as an explanation for my lack of comprehension. I want more Sephiroth posting like this shit.

Might even be fair.

I didn't see your comment before I wrote mine. Yes I just commented saying I'd prefer them to be a territory. Like Puerto Rico. I think the US would be ruined if Canadians get dozens of electoral college votes.

It would be a second California for Federal elections. I mean that in the worst sense possible.

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Marianas islands. The residents of these places are not slave races. They are not lower than me in terms of dignity. They don't get senators. Their Congressional representatives can't vote. They don't vote for president. That's fine. That's about right for Canada.

George III, welcome back! We missed you.

They are not lower than me in terms of dignity. They don't get senators. Their Congressional representatives can't vote. They don't vote for president. That's fine.

The first statement is contradicted by the subsequent ones. Not only do the people of PR, Guam, etc... not get an equal say in their country's government (as is the case between the residents of various states); they don't get any say. They are beneath you in dignity because they are your subjects. Subjects on fairly generous terms, I will grant you, but those terms are dictated to them by Congress and are subject to change without their consent.

Why, in hypothetical US-Canadian union, shouldn't Canadians get terms at least as good a deal as California, if not Wyoming?

In a hypothetical US-Canadian union, Canada has shown itself to be incapable of independent self governance and needs to be kept away from influencing American federal politics. Some moderate amount of local control would be tolerated but absolutely no say in Federal matters. Otherwise they would drag us down to their level.
What insanity could cause Americans to chain themselves to that anchor? Canada is a sad lesson in the possible governmental failure modes America could suffer from. The wounds were self-inflicted through poor governance. I'm a father; I can't force that bleak Canadian future onto my kids. They can't be allowed to harm American politics like this.

The truly baffling thing here is Canadians thinking they are somehow privileged and above Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens for over a century. Canadians have been (understandably) oppositional to Americans since 1812. I get it, but they are truly last in line for getting electoral votes. I'd grant the Philippines statehood and Senators before Canada.

What insanity could cause Americans to chain themselves to that anchor?

Apparently the desire of the current president for territorial acquisitions, but a slightly more charitable answer is that it would facilitate military and economic cooperation.

The wounds were self-inflicted through poor governance.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to illustrate. Much of this document is blotted out for some reason, about half of the remaining space is dedicated to talking about climate change, and the remainder is some pretty generic faff about future law enforcement problems.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this post just seems like chauvinistic posturing without substance. What specific aspects of poor governance would you identify in Canada or Canadian provinces relative to the US or particular states? The US already has whole regions of badly government territory e.g. the South, and so far disenfranchising the South remains a relatively fringe opinion.

That document was an internal RCMP risk estimation for the near future. It was obtained using the Canadian equivalent of the freedom of information act. They heavily censored it before releasing it resulting in those blanked out sections. They left in one relevant part:

In the words of Emanuel Macron, we are about to see "the end of abundance." Economic forecasts for the next five years and beyond are bleak. It is always unclear exactly how economies will perform, but this period of recession will likely have a negative impact on the social and political world as well.

POPULAR RESENTMENT The coming period of recession will also accelerate the decline in living standards that the younger generations have already witnessed compared to earlier generations. For example, many Canadians under 35 are unlikely ever to be able to buy a place to live. The fallout from this decline in living standards will be exacerbated by the fact that the difference between the extremes of wealth is greater now in developed countries than it has been at any time in several generations.

EROSION OF TRUST

This is a direct result of Canadian federal policy. For every three Canadians, import one immigrant. But don't build a new housing unit for every three existing units, so the number of units per resident decreases over time and the costs increase.

The young are screwed in Canada. To the point it is a law enforcement cause for concern regarding social stability.

I don't want my country made similar to their's by them swinging every presidential election in their direction. I get their natural resources are valuable. Their economy already is an extension of ours with something like 80% of their trade being with us and 90% of their population being within 100 miles of the border. There's much to be attracted to for a closer economic relationship. I'm not objecting to their lumber and car parts. But the rot in their politics would be a fatal disease.

This is a direct result of Canadian federal policy.

Which is why I want the culture of the people that voted for it utterly destroyed, as do the other 49% of Canadians.

A simple '51st' would probably be fine so long as the US mandates the new state incorporate its system of "prevent urban New England and California from imposing the dictatorship they want", because those are the people, and that is the culture, that causes the vast majority of the problems here. The soap and ballot boxes are in the rearview mirror.

Those 49% of Canadians were already moving that way before you got involved, of course.

The truly baffling thing here is Canadians thinking they are somehow privileged and above Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens for over a century. Canadians have been (understandably) oppositional to Americans since 1812.

This makes it sound as if the response to the 51st state about seat allocation and not just terror and anger at the idea itself.

Any Canadian who wants to become an American and can hack it takes a short drive down. The ones who stay were fine with deep economic and cultural links without being Americans. Well, mostly.

and not just terror and anger at the idea itself.

Someone has to step me through the terror and anger at the idea itself. Canada is actively suicidal and self-hating, I honestly don't see what a postnational country is supposed to fear about losing independence.

The European reaction to the Greenland affair is similarly deranged.

I can channel @ThisIsSin and say that there's actually nothing particularly arcane or hypocritical about it. The "post-national" state is still ruled by the powers that be in eastern Canada, so it's really their state regardless of whatever legitimizing ideology they stamp on it.

One can also say that Trudeau's point was essentially just an entrenchment of the compromise on Quebec that is now being applied to new migrants. The lack of a Canadian mainstream means the lack of any national identity that excludes French Canadians and other premium minorities (First Nations) which is really just securing their position and the status quo. Why would they want to lose that? Especially since the current status quo gives them more of a lever for cultural preservation than Anglos (there'd also be no escape hatch from the Supreme Court in the US like they currently have with the Notwithstanding Clause). It's in line with self-interest to prefer a non-assertive federal government.

Even putting that all aside, Trump's offer was admirably concrete for once: 51st state. One state for all the disparate interests. Even if you had no sentimental attachment to Canada at all and actually trusted Trump's word you can see that as a bad deal. I doubt even Sin would consider that optimal.

But, honestly, who cares? The whole point of sovereignty is that you decide, even if it's stupid. I don't understand this weird complaint that, because people want to configure their nation in a particular way (in ways Americans or even I might find insipid) that compels them to yield any demand made by odious, unserious bullies like Trump.

I especially don't get the complaint that it's a violation of truth in advertising. I don't know how you square the idea that Canada is anti-nationalist, with the claim that Canadian nationalism is loudly and consistently about being anti-American and act surprise that Canadians don't react well to the idea that they'll be annexed against their will. And I'm seeing all three in this thread.

The European reaction to the Greenland affair is similarly deranged.

Never give up clay if you can help it. Very old law.

More comments

This strikes me as when a reddit atheist meme smugly says "if you believe you're going to heaven and heaven is so much more important than anything on earth, why don't you let me kill you".

It is obviously bad to be killed (even as the more articulate Christian replies with "that would be aiding you in committing the sin of murder", which I believe is post-hoc reasoning and not something that is the first line of mental defense against the idea of being killed), and it is obviously bad to be dominated by a contemptible enemy.

More comments

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Marianas islands. The residents of these places are not slave races. They are not lower than me in terms of dignity. They don't get senators. Their Congressional representatives can't vote. They don't vote for president. That's fine. That's about right for Canada.

No thanks, and no thanks.

Very well. May Canada and the US never join. That's a nightmare scenario. Quibbling over the number of Senators would be the least of our problems in that existential crisis.

I'm a firm believer in the CanadAnschluss, and think it should be offered in a brotherly manner. Canada should be ten states. There is no purpose to the border.

That is a pretty fair offer I think, but it doesn't have that oomph of real Domination. Also it would legit give Canadians massive political power.

Vancouver and Island, West[1], Ontario[2], St. Lawrence[3], Quebec, Maritimes [4], Newfoundland/Labrador [5], North [6].

Those are all the states you need.

[1] Might need a couple of subdivisions due to geography, but the GVRD and Island are distinct nations compared to everywhere east of that. Removing the crooked law that banned all greenfield development in the rest of BC would be a massive boon to that area.
[2] I mean the part of Ontario on the East of the Canadian Shield, but excluding the parts less than 100km from the St. Lawrence- basically, excluding the region below.
[3] This region is the most culturally belligerent and needs a containment area so that it can't run roughshod over the rest of its area like it does now. It includes Montreal, for if they did not exist, Quebec would have separated 30 years ago.
[4] They'll say they have distinct cultures. If they had any cultural or economic output maybe I'd agree, and they have the same fundamental problem- the destruction of the Grand Banks and shitty geographic location- in common.
[5] Technically still Maritime, but I don't think NB/NS/PEI should have to suffer Newfie English being an official language. Different weather and with much less connection to the rest of the country.
[6] Dividing line at 54'40".

I don't understand why I should be humiliated when an entity with whom I depend on strategically offers me the right to vote on what it does, and I also want my all of my EHC that ran away to the US under NAFTA to have a reason to come back.

Rough illustration

Pretty much, yeah. Canada is mostly huddled around the border because, with the exception of Alberta (and why they're the natural seat of any Western Canadian government), that's where the good land is, and it's also as close as it can possibly be to its largest trading partner.

It does depress me to be talking about this. Maybe if I had grown up in a different time I'd have my elbows raised just as high, and we're ultimately talking about the possible/eventual erasure of peoples and cultures that still ultimately may have value.

But the culture in power, for ever- that in a different time once could and did respect the value of mine- has already clearly been erased, by the Americans, long ago (we venerate the American flag[1] so much we paint it on crosswalks and prosecute its desecration, and the ruling power holds the Blue view that they're bringing civilization to the wasteland from their urban exclaves). So I'm now in the unfortunate position of being dominated by the excesses of American culture even more than I ever think I would be if they were actually in charge, because were we under American law, I'd have far more robust cultural and legal protections against that.

Instead I suffer unilateral domination by that culture that I know I have no hope of checking... unless I am under American law, with an American vote, and American freedom of movement/employment.

[1] That rainbow one with all the chevrons is an American flag; it is intended by a certain subculture to replace the Stars and Stripes. All this stuff is what Blue Americans want for themselves, but they're not restrained by law and process here.

I don't think it should be humiliating to join the metropole. That doesn't mean that it can't be made to be humiliating. Having sex with a woman isn't humiliating, but her demands can make it so.

Alberta is the 51st state and the rest becomes the Great Convexity in the spirit of Infinite Jest.

It seems incredibly bizarre to me that we should allow any Canadians, except for the good people of Alberta, to vote. I prefer "Canadian Territory".

What's this "we" shit, paleface?

It's not in Republicans' interests for Canadians to vote. It's very much in the interests of Democrats.

And the French-Canadian Exclusion Zone.

iirc we're supposed to catapult toxic waste into it until they help us make shortform video more addicting

To be fair, even though Canada has 20 times the land area of California, it also has basically the same population (40 million) and significantly smaller GDP (2.5 vs. 4.2 T$/a). So making it all a single state isn't the most unreasonable idea in the world, though it is pretty unreasonable.

And if we use North Dakota as the referent, twenty states wouldn't be enough!

I do think the funniest outcome to Trumpisme is the incorporation of Venezuela into the Union, resulting in an end to illegal immigration, as we'll simply have 25 million broke venezuelan citizens who will suck up so many low-end labor jobs and drive prices down so far that there will be no gap in the market for the illegal migrant to fill.

I mean the US have a working model for offshore possessions they'd rather not grant freedom of movement to. Far more likely to be a Puerto Rico, Guam or an American Samoa situation. Though even the US Military doesn't really have the slots required to process as many Venezuelans who'd immediately be hammering down the recruiter's door.

Puerto Rican citizens have the right to migrate to America. Basically all of them did; it’s not one of the big Latin American countries and they’re one of the most represented ethnicities among Latinos in America. Guam and American Samoa are less notable, largely because there’s just so fewer of them. US territories have very large percentages of population living in the continental USA.

They began flooding into East Harlem right after V-J Day. I think there was some drought or crop blight in Puerto Rico that pushed them, plus affordable flights that made it easy.

Are you under the impression that Puerto Rican citizens are prevented from migrating to America?

Fair. I thought they were closer to the American Samoa model since I'm more familiar with it.

The US has a working model for offshore possessions they'd rather not grant freedom of movement to. Far more likely to be a Puerto Rico, Guam, or American Samoa situation.

What? Puerto Ricans and Guamanians are citizens, and American Samoans are non-citizen nationals, all with freedom of movement within the US. Apparently, back when the Philippines were under US control, even Filipinos were non-citizen nationals with freedom of movement.

if we use North Dakota as the referent

IMO, the best yardstick is the product of land area and population. According to a spreadsheet that I compiled a while ago, the USA's current states range from −3.0σ (Rhode Island) to +2.2σ (Texas) on this scale, while Venezuela is at +2.5σ (versus the current states, before annexation) and Canada is at +4.0σ.

Do you really have no theory of mind for other people believing that their nation ought to be treated with dignity by foreigners at least on the official level? Is this an extreme case of Hottentot morality?

But part of the problem here is you think Canada is "foreign" to Americans. Yes, it's a different country, but it's in no way foreign. American is pretty culturally diverse, much more than most cloistered Americans (or Euros) seem to realize, but most of Canada Canada is actually almost exactly like the Midwest in every way. Boston and New York city are much more foreign to most Americans than Canada, yet the modern Canadians attitude doesn't really reflect this.

This is not a defense of Trump by the way. By my measure he's totally incompetent and has done irreparable damage to the US and even more so the Republican party. Still, the attitude of the modern Canadian doesn't particularly beget cooperation.

But people mostly don't believe their nations ought to have a "real locus", a telos, or anything like this, they just want sovereignty, respect, and the ability to make deals in their self-interest.

I don't even get that in my own country; that's actually why I hope "we" lose.

Because Shakes is right- if we made the reforms necessary to actually stand up against the US, "we" would cease to be Canada any more. Carney's done the absolute bare minimum to get infrastructure projects that have been stalled for years and that's just because Alberta threatened to cut him out entirely.

Ottawa would prefer Edmonton remain underdeveloped because an intentionally underdeveloped province is easier to control, and can throw much less weight around on the Imperial stage (ironically, Canada is itself a post-national state- in other words, an empire- the imperial seat is in the area stretching between Toronto and Montreal, and every other province, including the rest of Quebec, is nothing but a vassal state).

And to be fair to the Imperials, this strategy might actually put out the fire of independence; if it does, perhaps they didn't deserve it after all.

Given your statement on 6 states above, your idea of losing is pretty comfortable.

It's just so very hard to get worked up about this when your region has been intentionally completely locked out of political power by the design of the country in the first place (and even if we do win the election- or at least don't get BTFO- the House won't respect those results anyway!), and so very hard to see the nation as a coherent place worth preserving as a consequence. Yes, the unique culture of my area might be erased in the process, but it was going to be erased by Ottawa anyway; what difference does it make if Washington does that instead?

They both show the same constant, callous, uncompromising indifference as far as I'm concerned.

I don't sympathize, and won't volunteer to die, for people who have continually demonstrated their hatred of me- that is the price of my sympathy. No American ever called me a nigger. (Or, well, okay, maybe that's not really true. But they are 100% a contributing factor to why my 'fellow' Canadians do that though.)

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