site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   32581 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I claim that 1) revolution is a bad tactic for conservatives because it structurally pushes towards a totalizing state and top down change according to rationalist principles, and would point to Spain as an example 2) the vanguard party commitment is itself anti-conservative because it depends on thought experiments rather than iterative development for the design of the envisioned society 3) top down institutions for structural reasons tend towards anti-conservatism 4) only organic development can build institutions which push in a conservative direction.

Hlynka posting is technically a misnomer; I’m more influenced by de Maistre.

Or consider the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which instituted an Islamic theocracy. They certainly claim to be following a conservative tradition of some kind; it might not be your preferred tradition, but it's a tradition. Are they too committed to an Enlightenment rationalist view of human nature? Does Islamic theocracy share a deep philosophical affinity with Marxist communism that has hitherto gone unnoticed? And the American Revolution too?

The Islamic revolution in Iran is a case of long term failure of top down revolution at creating the envisioned society, just like Franco was; its export through Hezbollah(bottom up even if astroturfed) is considerably more successful. Hezbollah’s control of Lebanon is an example of a conservative force building a parallel society which overtakes the secular modern government of the country in which it dwells by just being better at doing, well, anything people belong to a society for. It’s not an example I like very much- and the retardedly going to war with Israel over and over again will be its downfall- but it is an example. So is the taliban in Afghanistan. The Reagan revolution, driven by moral majority support due to evangelical Christianity(which in turn boomed largely due to the promise of healing the by-now embarrassing racial divisions in certain quarters) can be seen as a partial example but suffered from a lack of structural building.

Would you be willing to elaborate on this? I'm just curious

Much of what the DR calls ‘based’ is just retarded antisociality rooted in the idea of either machismo or offending as many people as possible. I don’t particularly care about ‘big muscles’ as a societal goal, have more conservative sexual ethics than most on the DR(which in its most mainstream form endorses male promiscuity), do care about the duties men owe towards their families which the DR can sometimes be hostile to in the breach. I support the existence of alimony and child support laws and think abolition of no fault divorce is the solution rather than offering a worse deal for women. Women shouldn’t be voting because they have the right to be shielded from the res publicae, the same argument the original anti-suffragettes made, and that women are worse at voting than men are in the present circumstances is perhaps true but only an incidental to the thrust of my argument. This is a duty which men owe to women- it’s on the same grounds that women have the natural right to prioritize motherhood and homemaking over their careers, or to be exempted from the draft- and not a punishment for women being… I don’t actually know what the DR is mad at them for, but it’s clearly something.

have more conservative sexual ethics than most on the DR(which in its most mainstream form endorses male promiscuity)

Ok, this may be at the root of some of the confusion around this topic. When I say "DR" I mean specifically the narrow white nationalist variant. These people by and large are quite conservative in terms of sexual ethics. Someone like Andrew Tate is not DR under this definition.

You can say that it's not fair to focus on such a relatively small group and ignore the diversity of alternative right-wing thought, which is a valid point, but the white nationalists are worth looking at in particular because they do provide a significant counterexample to Hlynka's arguments.

Tate doesn’t appear particularly popular on the dissident right(or anywhere else, really). But the BAP sphere(and if that’s not core to the dissident right then what is) has considerably laxer views on fornication than I do, and the broader white nationalist sphere seems to mostly be ok with things like (male)fornication and heterosexual sodomy.

Much of what the DR calls ‘based’ is just retarded antisociality rooted in the idea of either machismo or offending as many people as possible.

lol I enjoyed that bit.

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