site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20d ago (text post)   29777 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I cannot recommend highly enough the very in depth podcast series that Darryl Cooper (aka Martyrmade) did on this topic a few years ago.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yrm8aOmQg-o

The only caution here is that this is a bit radicalizing, it seems very well sourced, and does not paint a pretty picture of the way that sex-blackmail has been used for the last 50 years in the west.

For something briefer (50 minutes) I'd recommend Flesh Simulator's video "SERIAL KILLING FOR FUN AND PROFIT."

Discussed @ timestamp 11:21 "2. The Dirty Old Man": In 1973, Dallas police raided the apartment of pedophile and sex trafficker John Norman, uncovering a client list in a filing cabinet with 30,000 index cards, containing between 50,000 and 100,000 entries of names/contact information. These records were turned over to Kissinger's state department and promptly burned.

Quoth a youtube rando:

You know it's bad when the amount of CSAM being confiscated is so massive in each of these instances that it's being measured by weight.

Two more relevant vids by fleshman:

"Lt. Col Michael Aquino: Scandals, Satanists, and Psychological Warfare"

"What was the deal with DC's most infamous restaurant?"

It bears quoting this particular sentence from the Wikipedia article:

Dallas Police Lt. Harold Hancock told the Chicago Tribune in May 1977 that prominent public figures and federal employees were among the names found in Norman's client list.

The series is worth it alone for the part where Darryl describes his experience with woke counterintelligence training.

That said, I kept waiting for another shoe to drop, and it never did. “Powerful people use their power to have sex with teenage girls,” isn’t exactly the jaw-dropping beyond-the-pale perversion it’s presented as.

Girls who, by all reports, were claiming to be perfectly willing, it's worth noting. 'That overeager girl is actually underaged, cooperate or we call the cops' is a well known scam.

Belgian politicians and social elites were raping and murdering girls for fun. Then they openly murdered dozens of police officers and judges to cover it up. They basically got away with it. And it was all very overt, much more overt than anything to do with the American pizza-gate.

The brief summary is that many of the people who run your government and dictate the shape of your life are very bad people who do not share your values or care about your life or the life of your children.

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