site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   16272 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 5, 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.

India has just attacked three Pakistani army bases near the Kashmir region with missiles. There are some indications that power infrastructure in a Pakistani town was targeted as well. Troops are also clashing along the line of contact. This is as far as I know the biggest escalation in the region since the Kargil war. If this were any other two nuclear powers the world would be on a state of panic now. What are the culture war implications of a full scale nuclear war in South Asia?

UPDATE Unconfirmed reports that Pakistan is carrying out a military response, including air strikes on Indian bases in Kashmir.

UPDATE Pakistani Prime Minister has confirmed ongoing Pakistani military response. Heavy gunfire, artillery and air strikes heard on live feeds along the line of control on Kashmir

UPDATE Multiple Pakistani news outlets claim that Pakistan has shot down two Indian Rafael fighter jets. Some Indian news agencies are now reporting that a jet was downed.

UPDATE: Second round of missile strikes in the early hours of May 8. Sources confirm that the aerial engagement yesterday that caused the loss of 2-5 aircraft had over 125 fighter jets from both sides involved.

There were 15 killed in Poonch and triple-digit casualties in Pakistan. Indian leftists are silent as going against the army gets you locked in via the UAPA. Pakistan can get buck broken bad simply because India has more money, people, smarter people and geographic advantage. I don't want a war of any kind, but it is wild to see so many MAGA neocon types supporting Pakistan.

Mirpuris, the people behind the rapes in England that Kulak posted about are Pakistani, they also house Osama. The Indian state took the chance to virtue signal by making two women present this operation, two officers, both with zero combat experience, one was muslim, so Modi still yearns for Western validation.

The place attacked is Poonch, plenty of sikhs live there, and around 50 were injured. The strikes were all avoidable, unless you publicly skin some Kashmiri separatists, they will not stop. My hate for the neocon Indian Hindutva right is public as they are neither Hindu nor right, but them striking fear into people's hearts, leftists, is a big positive.

Things are not good. Indian muslims are aware of how bad this can be, and leaders like Owaisi are now bigger war mongers than anyone to show that he is in with India and not Pakistan. Things may escalate. Jaipur is not super safe. I will keep posting updates, but I do hope that we don't see any Indian casualties. The shoehorning of leftist ideals did seem bad. The army is the last bastion of Dwija male spirit, wherein regiments even have names after castes, most popular being the Rajputana Rifles.

I will also state that I am biased, I dislike Pakistan, I have family that has served in the forces and live in an area that is not super safe if an actual war breaks out. American cuck right taking pot shots was just low though, Indian state has issues, yet Pakistan usually starts all conflicts. Defending Mirpuris and people who allowed Osama in is hard to defend. Not all Pakistanis are like that, but the Pakistani state is straight evil. Any comparisons you may see about Kashmir and Gaza should result in you blocking said person.

I pray that I am safe, and my people remain safe. I got enough grains for a few months and am a little sad after the images from Poonch. The attacks in Pakistan were on terrorist bases, whilst Poonch is a civilian area where a lot of muslims got killed too.

The problem with Kashmir is that India drags out the conflict in a deeply unsympathetic way.

The vast majority of the population is Muslim. Muslims have no real place in a Hindu nationalist project of the kind you and other serious Hindutva activists propose. Some accommodation can probably be made with the Sikhs (who can be domestically pacified) and the other domestic minorities like the Christians and Buddhists don’t really matter.

Either

  • India should hand Muslim-dominated but India-controlled Kashmir to Pakistan, created as a Muslim state. No doubt major concessions in other areas could be won in exchange for such a generous move.

Or

  • India should resettle large number of Hindus in J&K etc such that these become Hindu-majority land, the same way that China did in Xinjiang or Russia did when it settled the far east with Europeans.

The current status quo is untenable.

Or everyone can live peacefully in India. Even many serious Hindutva activists want people of other religions to live their lives peacefully, and are ok with them openly practicing their religion. The kind of extremist opinions you see are a minority.

Yep, there's no Hindu extremism in India. It's mostly anti Hindu and anti upper caste. Democracy smh.

It's mostly anti Hindu

In what sense are Hindus oppressed or campaigned against in India?

I'd refer my posting history. For starters

  • India is a secular nation, the only nation to house Hindus.
  • There are religious subsidies, Muslims get a Haj subsidy whilst Hindu places of worship are mostly run by government, in some places, they have started elected priests of different castes out of spite. Temple rituals being fucked with is a major red flag.
  • Muslim areas are no go zones by default as any act of violence by Hindus, upper castes rather is enough to get the state to fuck you up forever. Bengal and Assam are heading for Muslim majority by 2040 due to the porous border that the country does nothing about.
  • Literally every single religious group gets explicit minority rights besides one, guess what that group is. This also means that Hindus cannot have exclusively Hindu places the same way others can.
  • Hindu festivals are not safe either. The supreme court bans the explicit use of firecrackers during Diwali, even though the crackers are an integral part of the religion, not the same as having them in during American independence day. There are religious connotations.
  • The waqf act is a good thing to read for the uninitiated to get an idea about preferential treatment. You can't even have a scheme like CAA that helps minorities from our low born neighbors. The protests agaisnt that were huge.
  • Every scripture is holy and beyond criticism except the for Hindu ones. Quran burnings result in mass scale violence 10/10 times whilst there are no consequences for doing the same against Hindu one. People burn the manu smriti, call Ram and Krishna names and even write books that win prizes like one literally named cuckold. This was written by a Marathi and won a national prize.
  • Allowing people to blast Islamic prayer despite it being illegal, something I've spoken about before.

Some things from the top of my head, there are plenty of much worse things besides these. Upper caste males are seen as the root of all evil who exist to pay nearly all taxes, make up nearly all of the military, nearly all of the achievements of the place, both past and present.

You do a lot of equivocation between social attitudes and government policy and discrimination against Hindus and discrimination against Brahmins, and it's not really clear to me which one you think is going on and which one each bullet is supposed to support.

India is a secular nation,

True perhaps in a technical sense, but when the PM is inaugurating Hindu temples (and I'm not aware of him inaugurating mosques), I'm not sure it's really relevant.

the only nation to house Hindus.

Not only is India not the only nation with Hindus, it's not even the only Hindu majority nation.

There are religious subsidies, Muslims get a Haj subsidy whilst Hindu places of worship are mostly run by government,

The state-run religion is not usually considered to be oppressed. Also, can you explain how a "secular nation" can operate Hindu temples?

in some places, they have started elected priests of different castes out of spite. Temple rituals being fucked with is a major red flag.

This doesn't indicate discrimination against Hindus at all.

Muslim areas are no go zones by default as any act of violence by Hindus, upper castes rather is enough to get the state to fuck you up forever... Every scripture is holy and beyond criticism except the for Hindu ones. Quran burnings result in mass scale violence 10/10 times whilst there are no consequences for doing the same against Hindu one. People burn the manu smriti, call Ram and Krishna names and even write books that win prizes like one literally named cuckold. This was written by a Marathi and won a national prize.

The existence of a heckler's veto does not imply that the majority is being discriminated against. You can't have a Mohammed drawing competition in the US without people coming to kill you either, but it's ridiculous to claim that the US discriminates in favor of Muslims.

Bengal and Assam are heading for Muslim majority by 2040 due to the porous border that the country does nothing about.

This is not evidence of discrimination against Hindus.

Literally every single religious group gets explicit minority rights besides one, guess what that group is.

Which rights do Hindus lack?

This also means that Hindus cannot have exclusively Hindu places the same way others can.

Which places in India are exclusively, for example, Christian?

Hindu festivals are not safe either. The supreme court bans the explicit use of firecrackers during Diwali, even though the crackers are an integral part of the religion, not the same as having them in during American independence day. There are religious connotations.

As far as I can tell the ban is only in places with terrible air quality? I don't see that as discrimination against Hindus. Do other religions get to perform celebrations that pollute the air to a similar extent?

The waqf act is a good thing to read for the uninitiated to get an idea about preferential treatment.

What in particular do you find objectionable about it? I don't find it particularly likely that a bill sponsored and signed into law by the BJP is anti-Hindu.

You can't even have a scheme like CAA that helps minorities from our low born neighbors. The protests agaisnt that were huge.

How is a bill that was basically supposed to help everyone but Muslims evidence of discrimination against Hindus? That such a bill was even proposed is primary facie evidence that India discriminates against Muslims.

Some things from the top of my head, there are plenty of much worse things besides these.

I would really prefer that you list the things that you think are the worst so that we can get to the bottom of this rather than a bunch of things that aren't really convincing and then go "but this isn't even my final form."

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