site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   10868 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 21, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Polls and prediction markets are currently showing good chances that the Democratic Party will have control of both the House and the Senate starting next January. What would be the effects of this? I imagine:

  1. More investigations of Trump. Whether they result in anything or not, this is something that the Democratic Party leaders feel compelled to do for various reasons: emotion, ideology, belief that they might actually find something that will sink Trump, and also the belief that their base wants it.

  2. The Democrats will push more heavily for AI-control legislation. Fears of job loss due to AI are rising, so this is a natural way for the Democratic Party to start drumming up goodwill heading into the 2028 Presidential elections. Plus I think many Democratic Party leaders are probably genuinely concerned about AI.

  3. The Democrats will launch increased legal and funding challenges to the Iran War. The Democratic Party is not fundamentally isolationist or anti-war, of course, but they would love to continue letting the Republicans own the negative consequences of the war, plus Israel is increasingly unpopular among Americans.

  4. Maybe the Democrats will at least make more noises against tariffs to try to link them (and thus, Republicans) more firmly in the public mind with the public's current negative sentiments about the economy? I don't know to what extent Democratic Party leaders actually care about getting rid of tariffs, especially the anti-China ones.

  5. Trying to limit ICE's power? This is a tricky one because on the one hand, Trump's most popular issue right now is immigration. On the other hand, Hispanics are apparently fleeing Trump in droves, so going against ICE could be a good way to keep them voting Democrat for the next few years at least. Plus this issue really energizes the Democratic Party base.

  1. Refuse to confirm any of Trump's appointments

  2. Virtue signally legislation that Trump will be forced to veto such as a BAN ON HORSEMEAT (also includes full amnesty for all immigrants)

  3. Investigations, investigations, investigations. Control the news cycle with impeachments of Trump but also Hegseth and others.

It's really hard to form an opinion on what's going to happen. Some thoughts on both sides:

  • The polls have been going wild, but I also remember when Ann Selzer had Iowa going for Harris and Trump won by +13. There's no doubt that Boomer leftist whites are highly motivated to answer polls. But they still only count for one vote.

  • Republicans have a motivation problem since it's been two whole years since the Democrats were in charge and Trump didn't magically fix everything. The retard right who was mad about vaccinations are now mad about data centers or whatever else retards get mad about.

  • I still have a hard time believing that Talarico is going to win in Texas or Al-Sayed in Michigan. These should be layups for Republicans.

  • Republicans have a lot of money in this cycle but Democrats are broke

  • If non-citizens were voting in appreciable numbers, they won't be now. But it probably won't matter since it's relatively small (< 1%), concentrated in safe blue states, and no guarantee they all voted blue

  • Apparently many states with mail-in votes are seeing fewer people ask for them. Could be a game changer if ballot harvesting in places like Detroit and Cleveland doesn't get off the ground.

  • People are really mad about affordability and are pinning it on Trump. His data center stance is unpopular too. One of the rare 80-20 issues that breaks D.

  • I'm not sure we've really fully modeled how Tik Tok and Instagram affect elections. It could be that 80% of women just get longhoused and its a permanent D majority from here on out. I mean, if these people will support a literal baby murderer...

Overall, I'll say Democrats take the house and Republicans hold the Senate fairly easily. But low confidence. I might just have my head in the sand. I'm a worrier, so I think that 2028 could be terminal for the Republic. Amnesty + open borders + ASI = a woke boot (or more likely a Han Chinese boot) stomping on human faces forever. I know every election is the most important ever. 2028 actually might be.

I'm a worrier, so I think that 2028 could be terminal for the Republic.

I've read someone who claimed that democratic republics live around 250 years on average. The only exception is Switzerland, but it is a very unusual polity. Everyone else runs into the same problem: the growth of the polity greatly enriches the elites, and the gap between them and the masses starts generating more and more unrest. The polity starts oscillating between oligarchy that favors the elites and tyranny that ostensibly favors the masses. This either weakens the polity enough that it loses to a contender, or it is reborn into a different form of government.

Maybe the US has a few more centuries left in the tank, but as an empire. It just has to survive its own second civil war until it gets to its own Octavian.

I've read someone who claimed that democratic republics live around 250 years on average. The only exception is Switzerland, but it is a very unusual polity.

Switzerland hasn't been a country for 250 years, let alone a democratic republic. Before the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna, Switzerland didn't claim to be a sovereign federal state - it was a treaty alliance between cantons that were de facto separately sovereign under the Treaty of Westphalia. The Canton of Bern was by far the largest and most powerful canton, and was notoriously oligarchic.

If you count America as continuously republican since 1776 or 1789, you would say that Switzerland has been a democratic republic since it was reconstituted after the Congress of Vienna (i.e. 200 years, a slightly worse run than the US). If you think a constitutional rewrite as a result of a civil war is a break in continuity, then Switzerland has been continuously democratic and republican since the end of the Sonderbund war in 1848. (Which is a slightly better run than the US)

Switzerland's political stability is remarkable given the multi-lingual, multi-confessional nature of the country, but it wouldn't stand out against the Anglosphere countries. Part of this, of course, is that the Anglosphere countries have the advantage of not having land borders with Napoleonic France/Nazi Germany/etc.

I don’t have a hard time believing Talarico is likely to win. The public doesn’t know him, Paxton is a terrible campaigner who’s mostly known for bribery and sex scandals, and it’s a blue year.

I do think that Abbott and French are significantly undervalued.

Honestly I really like betting on gop at current odds. Dems don’t have a coherent leadership/voting base to propose actual policy changes than a veto vote on Trump. And it seems like prediction markets always lean anti-right for last decade. So there has been alpha voting on right. I guess my theory would be prediction market early users leaned significantly Dem. And I have no faith in polling since picking up the phone died.

Yes. Buying Paxton at 37% seems like free alpha. I don't play prediction markets though.

I give Paxton’s odds at 45%. Higher than prediction markets give him, but he is mostly known for bribery.

If my brokerage account was connected to these things I would be placing some bets. But don’t really feel like transferring money and signing up for these sites.

I wish I had a better idea of the market participants because these things do vibe to me that they have a left bias. It wouldn’t shock me if Soros or sometime places these bets to boost Dem turnouts on hope of winning.

So many reasons not too:

  • High bid ask spreads
  • High slippage
  • You can't move real money
  • Opportunity cost of tying up your money
  • Counterparty risk (do these things have SIPC or FDIC insurance)
  • Counterparty risk (they can resolve in bizarre ways)
  • Insider manipulation on hidden information
  • No IRS guidance (winnings could be regular income, losses could be considered gambling and disallowable)

Both sides are using these things to manipulate public opinion.

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