site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   33977 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 12, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is so viscerally disgusting to me, it's almost amazing the way the Trump administration has managed to expose the hypocrisy at the heart of the refugee resettlement NGOs and cause them to undermine their entire raison d'etre, it's beyond brilliant:

-- It's blatantly obvious to any liberal paying attention that politically rejecting refugee groups on ethnic grounds will go in bad directions. If you're rejecting Afrikaners, why are you accepting Palestinians? Who can you accept from Rwanda and the Congo? Almost every ethnic group has done bad things en route to refugee status, the myth of the innocent victim is an absurdity. This undermines all future refugee resettlement projects, and exposes them to future lobbying against other refugee groups.

-- It's going into the nativist frame by admitting that some refugees and immigrants are bad for the country and don't deserve to be here. The pro immigration argument must be universal if it is to exist at all, once you admit of some exceptions you enter the restrictionist frame of argument, and you start losing.

-- It's not clear how accepting white south africans who want to leave South Africa into the United States can possibly be a bad thing for South Africa. It's creating a frame of imprisonment, of anti-emigration: the country of South Africa has a right to say that white people can't leave in the name of "racial justice." Which is clearly insane and disqualifies their whole argument: absent an actual crime a country being unwilling to let their people leave is obvious tyranny. If South Africa wants to keep its white population in the country, it should treat them better. Full stop. Freedom to leave is the most basic freedom imaginable.

Not only is all this disgusting to me, it blows my mind that they are saying all this out loud. That no one at the organization seems to see what they are saying, is bright enough to pick up on subtext.

This is the best way yet to permanently torpedo the refugee program.

This is the best way yet to permanently torpedo the refugee program.

I predict a Democrat will be in the White House soon. Probably next election. They'll scramble to selectively undo Trump's work. Expect the NGO cash spigot to open back up.

-- It's not clear how accepting white south africans who want to leave South Africa into the United States can possibly be a bad thing for South Africa.

But it is? I'm extremely pro-immigration because immigration is imperialism. It hoovers up people self-selected for being ambitious and hardworking from other countries, thereby strengthening our nation and weakening our rivals at the exact same time. Academia might claim that immigration claim actually benefits both countries because of remittances, but that's just a classic case of privileging legible measures of contribution (in this case, the accounting value of remittances) over real, but illegible benefits (all the ways people improve their communities my living in them.)

To be clear, this church is full of racists and hypocrites. To believe only white people emigration hurts source countries indicates a massive level of paternalism and contempt for nonwhite peoples, while at the same time believing Afrikaners aren't deserving of humanitarian treatment is of course just pro facie racist against Afrikaners. But the specific argument they're making here isn't entirely wrong.

But it is? I'm extremely pro-immigration because

Exactly my point!

Admitting that people emigrating is bad for the country they are from is an argument that, once admitted by the pro-immigration crowd, is fully generalizable.

If it's bad for South Africa to get rid of discontent whites, then why is it good for us to take refugees from Syria and Afghanistan and...?

...because syria and afghanistan are illiberal shitholes and we should jump at the chance to strengthen ourselves while weakening them?

The problem is Californication -- the people you bring in are likely to make your country more like their country in some ways, including ways you won't like. Italian immigration brought La Cosa Nostra, for instance.

It hoovers up people self-selected for being ambitious and hardworking from other countries, thereby strengthening our nation

Largely untrue for recent and particular groups to Denmark and The Netherlands.

That's because migrants shouldn't get government welfare besides essential services (e.g., police, fire) and programs know to have a positive rate of return (e.g. childhood education) unless their host country admitted them specifically because they have an attractive skillset justifying recruitment and retention efforts. America is better than europe because most of our immigrants are illegal so we don't need to pay for their medicare or social security. Illegal immigration is better than regular immigration.

This is so viscerally disgusting to me, it's almost amazing the way the Trump administration has managed to expose the hypocrisy at the heart of the refugee resettlement NGOs and cause them to undermine their entire raison d'etre

Except they didn't. People are already making excuses for them. The Afrikaners jumped the line so it would be immoral to help them. The Afrikaners aren't actually oppressed so it would be immoral to help them when so many actually oppressed are. The Afrikaners aren't actually the reason, it's the suspension of the refugee program. And so on. People don't update. The head of the program could probably state outright "We'd rather shut down than help these goddamn white devils" and the people who supported them would still support them. Sure, those of us who were already suspicious see this as a great reveal, but it doesn't make anyone change sides.

It's not going to show up right away and it's not going to show up for everyone. It's going to take time and it's going to be on the margins. White hatred isn't special, white adjacent contains everyone eventually.

But this same argument will be used against Alawites and Palestinians and Hutus.

We've seen the right use rhetorical judo anti semitism against the left. This will be next.

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