site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   32006 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’ve blocked over 15,000 people on X by now, and I would say that 70% of them were due to vulgar antisemitism. I don’t block people for saying Jews run the media, or that we live under a Zionist Occupied Government, or that Jews have split loyalties, so those 15,000 are just the nakedly hateful, the-Holocaust-isn’t-real-but-I-wish-it-was people.

In the comments section, he assured his audience that his ‘Hitler was misunderstood’ take was still very much coming.

I don't get it. Is this just a "narcissism of small differences" situation? "Jews are pernicious, they should have been gassed, and Hitler wasn't such a bad dude, but that doesn't mean that you should hate them" doesn't really seem like a stable equilibrium.

"Jews are pernicious, they should have been gassed, and Hitler wasn't such a bad dude, but that doesn't mean that you should hate them"

Whose opinion is this?

The first two are the opinions of people that Cooper doesn't block. Since he is blocking views he finds unacceptable, he must find these acceptable, or at least, not beyond the pale.

The third seems to be Cooper's own view, unless his article on how Hitler was misunderstood turns out to be an article about how Hitler was even worse than people think.

I don't see the reason for the one sentence strawman. To reply with a one sentence steelman of Cooper: 'Here are historical circumstance, here's why they came to be, here's the horrible outcome, here's what could have gone differently. By the way, don't hate people.'

I think the issue rests more with people who are unwilling to let go of a pseudo religious otherizing ahistorical narrative, similar to Douglas Murray on his recent Joe Rogan debate, rather than people forming opinions that exist outside the post war consensus.

I mean, I agree, it sure isn't a stable equilibrium for the church to sit idly by as heresy is spread. But I don't see why anyone should be concerned with the church.

To reply with a one sentence steelman of Cooper: 'Here are historical circumstance, here's why they came to be, here's the horrible outcome, here's what could have gone differently. By the way, don't hate people.'

It's a curious steelman that fully abstracts away all the details of the claims and the facts. Are we talking about the JQ or why a project went over budget?

I mean, I agree, it sure isn't a stable equilibrium for the church to sit idly by as heresy is spread. But I don't see why anyone should be concerned with the church.

And now I've fully lost sight of how this metaphor corresponds to reality at all.

We are talking about Darryll Cooper. I don't see how the steelman is abstracting anything relevant as Cooper, in his own words, describes himself and his viewpoint similarly, though at greater length. What claims and facts you refer to or their relevance, I am missing.

And now I've fully lost sight of how this metaphor corresponds to reality at all.

I'm referring to the paragraph written above, where I note that people like Douglas Murray take issue with the viewpoint of people like Daryll Cooper, who allow themselves to exist outside the post war consensus orthodoxy with regards to WW2. I assumed you were in a similar boat to Murray, and that when you referred to Coopers viewpoint as not being a 'stable equilibrium' you were referring to a similar contention, just relating to the JQ, not WW2. I'm happy to hear where I misread you and what you meant by 'stable equilibrium'.

Cooper, in his own words, describes himself and his viewpoint similarly, though at greater length

How much of that is cognitive dissonance?

By "(un)stable equilibrium", what I meant is that if one, like Cooper seems to, admits that the following may be true, or at least are not obviously wrong:

  • The Holocaust was a good thing
  • Jews run the media (and this is bad)
  • Jews run the government (and this is bad)
  • Jews have split loyalties (and this is bad)
  • Hitler was not that bad

Then I don't see how you can draw the line just there, and go no further to reach the obvious conclusion, which is:

  • Jews are bad
  • Jews are to be hated

And yet he seems to be in this position. I am not saying that he necessarily believes all the things in the first list, but he feels that they are at least understandable or positions that a reasonable person may hold. However, he feels that a reasonable person may not hold the positions that are a natural consequence of those opinions. This doesn't seem tenable to me.

You're morally framing these things. Cooper, as far as I can tell, wants to factually frame them.

The Holocaust was exaggerated

Jews influence a lot of the media

Jews influence the government

Jews have split loyalties

Hitler was not that bad

From there you don't need to hate jews. I don't know what Cooper thinks beyond that, but I would just demand they don't act like they are above the common courtesy everyone else has to show eachother.

For example, stop promoting the ethnic denigration of the people who allowed you to live in their countries. Stop dropping our bombs on your neighbors and then demand we take them in as refugees. Stop pathologizing and villainizing your hosts. Take an active role in caring for their wellbeing rather than being ambivalent about them and their future. If you want to be jewish and care for your people and culture, with the goal of maintaining both, that's great. But you can't do that at the same time as you undermine other peoples and their culture. That action can only lead to conflict.

I mean, if nigh every western leader can go to the wailing wall and proclaim their undying loyalty and friendship to Israel, surely jewish leaders can return the favor sometimes.

You're morally framing these things. Cooper, as far as I can tell, wants to factually frame them.

I'm not making a value judgement here. I'm looking at the positions that Cooper holds or considers reasonable to hold. Those positions include value judgements.

Jews influence a lot of the media

Jews influence the government

Let's not retreat to the motte here. The original phrasing was "run the media" and "ZOG".

From there you don't need to hate jews. I don't know what Cooper thinks beyond that, but I would just demand they don't act like they are above the common courtesy everyone else has to show eachother...

I don't see why not. You have a list of demands here, but what is really the meaning of it? If one really believes Jews run the media and control the government, can one be satisfied with just nudging their governance a little bit on the margins? Surely if one accepts this world view, the demands should be much greater, to take back control of the government and media and ensure that it can't happen again (despite it apparently happening in "nigh every western" country).

What emotion can a "host" feel for a ruling population but hate, unless those rulers have killed those neurons altogether?

More comments

Cooper has never said that the Holocaust was a good thing, or anything even close to that. And he never said that Hitler wasn’t that bad either. It sounds like your knowledge of Cooper’s opinions comes entirely from Bluesky character assassination tweets.

Cooper has never said that the Holocaust was a good thing, or anything even close to that.

I included this in my comment in the hopes of heading off this exact misunderstanding.

I am not saying that he necessarily believes all the things in the first list, but he feels that they are at least understandable or positions that a reasonable person may hold.

And he never said that Hitler wasn’t that bad either.

Indeed, for that we'll need to wait for the forthcoming "Hitler was misunderstood" article.

It sounds like your knowledge of Cooper’s opinions comes entirely from Bluesky character assassination tweets.

You overestimate me. My knowledge of Cooper's opinions comes entirely from this thread and one or two other threads about him on this forum.

More comments

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