site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   27906 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The reason for the anger and resentment of the Magdeburg attacker is fairly clear. He was in contact with numerous people from his region of origin and felt that they were, in some specific cases, not treated fairly by German society. In the case of Alexander S., I'm not sure what to think. He appears to have simply been a loser.

What does that mean he was simply a loser? That seems enormously disrespectful to the victims - imagine how much of a worthless failure you would have to be to be killed by a guy whose only notable feature is his inability to do anything right? And is 'fucks up a terrorist attack' on the list of typical loser behaviours? 1. Bad at sports 2. No friends 3. Never kissed a girl 4. Can't even slaughter a crowd effectively?

If you don't know his motive, just say that. Or at least go with mental illness, that doesn't throw the victims under the bus.

I think a loser who manages to kill a few people just graduates to extra pathetic loser through his murders. I have sympathy for losers, but not for killer losers. Humans are squishy and easily killed if you don't care about social consequences. Real life is not some MMORPG where A killing B proves anything relevant about the relative merits of A and B: the guys who shot celebrities such as Dutschke, MLK, Lennon might have had an impact on world history, but that does not mean that they the respectability of their victims should somehow be transferred to them. World history should not care for these murderers more than it should care to name the lightning strikes which kill a person.

If I am ever killed by some fuckwit, please don't elevate him to some level of respectability out of respect for me. I am totally with Brecht when he asks us to destroy any respect for killers and their acts of killing. Don't mention my killer by name, instead invent some demeaning nickname for him. Killing people (absent a very good reason) should get more ridicule than most other ridiculous behaviors. By all means, let late night TV speculate about the killer's penis size instead of turning my murder into a grimdark real crime drama with gloomy music.

I believe his motive was anger and resentment, because, as I said, there is really no other reason to carry out a random killing of this sort. And the most common reason for anger and resentment is simply being a loser; i.e., not having achieved the status you want or feel entitled to within your particular social circle. You could call that "mental illness" if you like. Of course, maybe he had some other reason. The news articles I read didn't give much useful information.

To the rest of your comment, I find it bizarre to suggest that being killed randomly by a mentally ill loser makes you a "worthless failure". Sometimes good people die for stupid reasons. Here is a story about someone who was killed by a bed falling on her. Does that make her a "worthless failure"? Obviously not. Things like this happen every day.

You can be randomly crushed by a bed, a murder is targeted. Maybe not directly targeted, but targeted nonetheless. And what kind of person gets targeted by a loser and loses the altercation? A bigger loser by definition.

Beyond that I object because by painting the second guy as a simple loser you seem to be implying the other guy was either justified or not a loser.

And the most common reason for anger and resentment is simply being a loser; i.e., not having achieved the status you want or feel entitled to within your particular social circle. You could call that "mental illness" if you like. Of course, maybe he had some other reason. The news articles I read didn't give much useful information.

No what I call mental illness is whatever compelled him to kill random people. Losers, as I have known them, are generally far too passive and cowardly to kill anyone. If simply being a loser was enough to cause people to go on murder sprees they'd happen constantly.

And what kind of person gets targeted by a loser and loses the altercation? A bigger loser by definition.

If that's how you define losers then I'd expect your loser hierarchy to get circular quick (and paint most people as losers) since most people would lose if targeted in a situation where mortal danger is not expected and there is little time to react, such as getting rammed with a car at a fair or getting shot in the back in school. Made of Iron Georg, who got knocked out, then stabbed by a katana and still managed to shoot down a few of his Zizian assailants upon waking up (and then lived), is an outlier.

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