site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   35709 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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.

Spencer would tell you not to do anything to paint a target on yourself accelerate the collapse by furthering the more insane parts of the left so you can be the reasonable alternative to the communists when the Reichstag burns.

Maybe he should have taken his own advice then because literally everyone thinks he's a clown. He hung out with some of the most deranged Nazis like Andrew Anglin and TRS, did a Heil Hitler salute in front of liberal journalists who used him as a patsy, and then went to Charlottesville where he basically killed the Alt-Right for good. Now that he is literally hated by everyone, all he can do is sit on the sideline and be a contrarian and grift.

He's also just straight up wrong on his takes about Christianity and white identity. Plus his takes on the Jews are deranged. He has endorsed the idea that Jews created Christianity to secretly control the goyim. He also believes that Mohammad didn't exist and was created by Jews. He also has said that Snorri Sturluson was a crypto Jew.

He is nota serious person.

I'm not objecting to his being a patsy. I'm objecting to his not having a plan/ideology.

Yeah he sucks at it and any successes of WNats are frankly not his own, but this is the forum where we try to not to handwave people as retards and instead consider their failure, isn't it?

I don't think we should gloat about how much of a lolcow Fuentes is either, for instance, and just consider whether his views have merit.

What I'm saying he doesn't get to give that advice when he did the complete opposite of that when he had the chance. So even if that's what he's saying now, we have years of evidence showing when given the chance he does the complete opposite. The reason he is doing what he is now is because he literally has no other option. He embarrassed himself so thoroughly that nobody will ever associate themselves with him. So it's easy to give that advice when that's the only option you have. He has a massive ego and would love to be in the limelight again if the opportunity arose, where he would probably make the exact same mistakes as before because he hasn't shown a hint of remorse for his actions or admitted any fault.

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