site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   31267 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 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.

The "Hoax" is two-fold.

It is now clear that the original claim about "Administration officials leaking classified war-plans" was (at a minimum) grossly overstated if not outright false.

In addition, we (the general public) are being asked to believe that the same people who voted for Clinton in 2016 and who supported keeping the nuclear football in the hands of a dementia patient for the last 3+ years, are now "genuinely and deeply concerned" about operational and national security. NOT just reaching for anything they can use to attack the outgroup because Orange Man Bad.

I don't see how that's hard to believe at all. I trust Biden with the nuclear football infinitely more than Hegseth, Trump, Vance, or any of the people in that group chat. Biden may have dementia, but at least he was competent at one point, and at least he's aware of his limitations and would surround himself with advisers who can help him make the right decisions. I am genuinely and deeply concerned that immediate national security issues are being discussed in a group chat where random people are invited.

I trust Biden with the nuclear football infinitely more than Hegseth, Trump, Vance, or any of the people in that group chat.

Are you being sincere about this or exaggerating for effect? Biden was fully senile at the end, and it’s really not clear when in his term he crossed that line. I’m not so sure he was aware of his limitations, either. Trusting him over Trump I frankly can understand, Trump is erratic and underinformed and is himself clearly losing his sharpness with age (although I wouldn’t call him fully senile, yet). But Vance, for example, doesn’t seem any less competent than any other run-of-the-mill politician, he’s not even a hawk. I would absolutely trust him above Biden to make decisions in a crisis. Unless you mean you’d trust Biden’s advisors to steer him the right way when the shit hits the fan?

Deplorable transparency. If only the state would hide its inner workings more thoroughly from its citizens!

I joke. Obviously it's not the same if it happens by accident.

Citation needed

Low effort. I can guess which statement in the above post you are referring to, but you don't even quote it, and if you did it would just be making a snarky one-line quip. If all you have to say is "Nuh uh" it probably isn't worth the keystrokes.

So was the above post.

Citation of what exactly?

Take for example “Biden was once competent.” Famously Obama said don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things. Has Biden been right about literally anything in FP for years?

The initial post was pure aesthetic (ie Biden, a long time Washington guy, is “very serious” and therefore competent).

Genuinely trying to understand your points here.

For 1, how is this grossly exaggerated or substantially false?

For 2, is there some relevance here? This seems like the generic laundry list of sneers right-populists use against the media, for which I agree with Scott and Hanania. I can agree with limited claims that the media will often spin and misrepresent. But the media brought receipts. They have screenshots, and from what I can tell, nobody's really saying the screenshots are faked.

For 1, the screenshots have born the theories of more skeptical users from the previous threads like @Dean and @Setulla out. If anything they were being generous

For 2, it demonstrates that the demand for rigor is isolated. The media is niether good nor honest, CMV.

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