site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16385 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 19, 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.

I used to get tons of text messages about Kamala Harris' purported sexual conquests with a "you go girl don't let the republicans keep you down" vibe.

I'm glad I don't have to constantly hear about Willie Brown's willy anymore.

I hope I never have to hear about Kamala Harris again as long as I live.

Brother, have I ever got some news for you.

She just has name recognition, there’s no way she really gets nominated. I’m doubtful she’ll even make the attempt. Newsom is much more likely (cold comfort perhaps), or even AOC, but my gut says the eventual nominee will be someone nobody knows or cares about right now.

No, I doubt she'll actually secure the nomination (my money's on Newsom or Ossoff). But even if Harris puts her name forward, we certainly haven't heard the last of her yet.

I started to say "Come on even the Democrats can't be that stupid" but then I heard myself.

Part of me is going "Oh please please please run, I so badly want a follow-up volume to 107 Days" but I guess that's kind of mean.

Who would be her VP, though? Nominations here as I value your informed opinions so much. A second Tim Walz to appeal to the male vote or someone who could actually do the job?

Mark Kelly. He has impeccable credentials but he looks like a VP. He can play both the hero and the aggrieved victim persecuted with Trump. Democrats have a growing problem if Republicans "own" the image of space because of Elon, everyone is anti-AI, anti-nuclear, etc. Mark Kelly gives them a very easy self-image, a positive vision of the future. Plus Arizona is a swing state now.

Nah, she rejected Kelly first time round because she was afraid he'd be too popular (ex-astronaut!) and divert attention away from her on the campaign trail:

By the time I sat down with Kelly, Shapiro and Walz had both impressed me in completely different ways. There was very little weight on the scale favoring one over the other. The choice between them was tough enough. Now, an American hero had entered the room, a Navy baseball cap paired handsomely with his business suit.

...I admired Mark Kelly. He would be magnetic.

As I sat across from him, what I saw was our American ideal of selfless service. Untarnished. He also hadn’t yet had an “oh shit” moment in his relatively short political career. I wasn’t sure how he would cope with the kind of garbage Trump would throw at him. Could a captain, used to deference and respect, adapt to an opponent’s national campaign specifically designed to disrespect him, to cut a hero down to something small? John Kerry, a war hero, had been swiftboated—defamed in an untrue campaign about his military record that had unfairly damaged his reputation. The guy who led that effort, Chris LaCivita, was now one of Trump’s top campaign aides. I realized that I couldn’t afford to test Mark Kelly in that ugly grinder.

So instead she picked Timbo, who would be waaaaay tougher and able to stand up to the "ugly grinder" of Trump's campaigning 🤣 Yeah, sure, Kamala!

If Kamala manages to get the nomination, it'll be a second Tim Walz type. She can't stand anyone who could obviously upstage her.

I don't think the Democrats are dumb enough to give her the nod, considering every Republican possibly in play except Vivek could beat her with their eyes closed (OK, Nikki Haley might need to keep one eye open), but if she does, it'll be another Democratic disaster.

I agree there, I just wonder who the obvious (or maybe not obvious) lapdog would be? Anyone with a grain of sense will avoid the honour of being picked as her running mate, so who are the halt and the blind who might be desperate enough?

This is what Kamala wanted from Tim (after earlier in the book spouting off how Biden's White House staff couldn't see the value in her as VP doing well, they thought this would take away from Biden, and then later on she dumps Shapiro for the same reason: VP can't be co-president):

He said he had no ambition to be president, that his aim as vice president would be doing meaningful work to improve people’s lives. It’s no bad thing for a vice president to want to be president, unless that ambition plays a corrosive role in the relationship and causes disloyalty. That wouldn’t be an issue with Tim. He had no fixed ideas about what the role of vice president should be, saying he would do whatever I found was most useful for him to do.

I can't seriously see Harris getting another bite at the cherry but there are people talking up AOC and that's an even battier notion.

The replacement level republican could probably lose to Kamala with a blue tailwind- not by a lot, that might take Vivek. But, like, Kim Reynolds or John Thune won't outperform a generic ballot.

I mostly agree with you, but I think Vance could manage to lose to Harris if he really wanted to.

Something about modern politics means that both parties would far rather talk to the most toxic subset of their respective bases than the median voter. Harris tried and failed to resist the temptation repeatedly. Vance's current role in the MAGA project doesn't require him to even try to resist the temptation. He should be able to change things up for a general election campaign, but watch this space.

"How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?!"

What about you? Do you find it- wisible- when I say the name "Willie... Brown?"

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