site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15507 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 1, 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.

Does anyone know how to get confirmation / denial from the police or prosecutors as a random nobody from another country? We might be getting a update on the Braveheart incident.

Highly sophisticated Twitter anons are now claiming that Fatos Ali Dumana has been charged with assaulting a minor:

  • Police Scotland originally claimed that CCTV footage went missing but it proved that only Lola Moir had committed a crime by being in possession of dangerous weapons
  • It is now claimed that this is a lie and there is proof that Police Scotland attempted to cover up the crime of Fatos and his sister assaulting the little girls
  • Attached is the screenshot of the hospital record proving that Ruby Moir sustained a serious head injury (concussion) as a result of the assault by Fatos Ali Dumana and his sister

Now, this isn't new information per se, as @FistfullOfCrows pointed out "it has been alleged". I can't find the link to where I first saw the allegation, but I've seen it, and remained skeptical thinking "shouldn't there be a medical report"? Lo, and behold, there seems to be one attached to the above tweet.

Ok, it's still trivial to fake something like this, it would be nice to get some sort of confirmation from a disinterested source.... oh, look (Turn off javascript to read. I tried archiving it, but they seem to have countermeasures) a local newspaper is saying that """Two further people""", """a man and a woman""", have been charged as a result of the incident. No names are named (funny how you can dox a little girl, but somehow adults are a step to far), so who knows, maybe it's the girl's parents that are being charged, but with all the other irregularities around the incident, and the newspaper's cageyness around the names of the suspects I wouldn't bet on it.

So... does anyone know how to go about confirming / denying this? @self_made_human, you're in Scotland, would you be willing to make some phone calls?

EDIT:

I feel like further details will just indicate that this is a deranged Indigenous Chav v invasive Chav situation but also it's hard to come up with many good reasons for why the United Kingdom needed to import a Fatos Ali to occupy one of its esteemed council houses

My guess is she’s going to turn out to be carrying a hatchet to impress some 16 year old petty drug dealer, this Turk from Bulgaria confronted her and it escalated into a confrontation with Florida-man efficiency.

I'm taking bets at this point. Most girls don't behave that way, and the ones that do don't look and act like her.

Ma'khai Bryant is an existence proof of immature girls with a melee weapon being a legitimate lethal threat, but she was sixteen, not twelve. YMMV on the relevance, but I'd say a twelve-year-old girl with knife/hatchet is still a deadly threat, and register confusion with arguments in the previous thread that the idea of a twelve-year-old girl being able to seriously harm someone with a large knife or hatchet is somehow laughable. In my view, this is an exceedingly rare occurrence because of the normative psychological incapacity toward killing wrath of twelve-year-old girls, not because of any innate physical incapacity. Edged weapons greatly magnify the harm a given amount of force can inflict.

When I watched the video after reading a fair amount of discussion, it updated me against the girls somewhat; it did not look to me like clear-cut, innocent self-defense, more like belligerent brandishing. I thought it was at least plausible that the girls were in the wrong and the guy was trying to get evidence on camera. On the other hand, I was fairly disgusted by the general assumption by many that self-defense was illegitimate a priori, and I think British laws against arming oneself for purposes of self defense, even by kids, even in public, utterly farcical.

So, basically, at this point I'm breaking out the popcorn and would love to see more evidence.

According to the GiveSendGo:

While walking in their local community. Lola (12), Ruby (13) and Mayah (13) were accosted by two adult foreign nationals. The foreign nationals were directing inappropriate sexual remarks at Lola. When Lola and her sister told the migrants to leave them alone and go away Ruby was viciously attacked by the adult female, yanked to the ground by her hair and both migrants proceeded to kick Ruby in the head on the ground. Seeing her sister being beaten senselessly on the ground, Lola retrieved an axe and a knife and bravely scared off the attackers, saving her sister.

I don't know if it changes your opinion if Lola wasn't walking around with the weapons, but retrieved them during the attack.

Of course, how on Earth does one retrieve weapons fast enough to return before the end of a scuffle between a 13 year old girl and two adults? How long does it take to attack a 13 year old girl?

I think the statement was carefully written to avoid further legal trouble and Lola "retrieved" the axe and knife from somewhere on her person.

Of course, how on Earth does one retrieve weapons fast enough to return before the end of a scuffle between a 13 year old girl and two adults?

If she lives in a flat that faces that playground, it could be a matter of about a minute or two. I wasn't retrieving knives and axes, but I've done this sort of thing plenty of times as a kid.

That description does not seem like a match for what I saw in the video. If there had already been a physical altercation before the video took place, why didn't the two girls run away?

It seems clear to me that there was some kind of altercation which took place off-camera before the video starts in which the girl showed the hatchet and knife to the migrants. It was only after this that the male migrant started filming, which is why he already knows about the hatchet and knife when the video starts. Since the girls stick around and engage in trash talk rather than running away screaming, we can presume that no significant blows have been exchanged before the video begins. If there was violence then it must have happened after.

I would also not be surprised if a fundraiser bent the truth a little bit to make the victim more sympathetic.

There were three girls, one of them concussed (according to the girl's family) and maybe unable to move quickly.

A relevant factor in the case is that hatchets are difficult to conceal and twelve year old girls are not, in general, very large. It seems unlikely that she was carrying this weapon on her person and more likely that she had it stashed for some reason.

hatchets like the one she has are quite easy to "conceal" in what she's wearing. handle down the back of your pants-leg, belly of the blade hooked over the hem, shirt covering the blade. It'll almost certainly print in a variety of ways and make moving and sitting a bit awkward, but nothing prohibitive.

The one that's going to be hard to conceal is the chef's knife, unless she has some sort of sheath, which in my experiences knives like that don't tend to have and kids don't tend to think of making. A long blade sitting against your flesh is not a recipe for safety. There's also not enough structure to hook the hemline reliably, and you don't want one of those dropping down your pantleg along your thigh and calf and into your ankle and foot at an inopportune moment.

The statement is interesting to me to the extent that it's the girls' story, and therefore something fixed that we can measure against further solid evidence. I'm skeptical about how "retrieving" a hatchet and chef's knife works, but it's at least plausible. But as for the rest, it's he-said-she-said; I disagree with comments here that kids brandishing blades isn't a lethal threat, we have no actual proof of the inappropriate sexual remarks and I learned a long time ago the hazards of "Listening and Believing", but also I'm keenly aware that foreign males treating native girls like whores is in fact a serious problem and one the current establishment has proven they will expend significant resources to cover up; but then, this guy making passes at kids in front of his sister seems pretty odd.

At this point, as far as I can tell, all the points that seem morally significant to me have zero solid evidence behind them:

  • Who approached who?
  • Did the adults make "inappropriate sexual remarks" toward the kids? What were those remarks, specifically?
  • What did the kids say back?
  • Who initiated assault?
  • Did the adults actually throw the kid to the ground and kick her in the head? Is there any evidence of this in the video or from the aftermath: dirt on her clothes, scrapes or bruises, bloody nose, split lip, any evidence of physical harm?

What we actually have on video is pretty much useless for answering the above questions. Notably, I'd argue that knife-and-hatchet brandishing can in fact be morally-legitimate self defense, and so can knocking a minor assailant down and then kicking them while they're down, including in the head. Whether the weapons were carried or retrieved seems entirely irrelevant to me.

I'm given to understand that Urban England does not suffer from a paucity of security cameras. I have a strong presumption that this event was captured on video. I want to see that video. If it shows anything other than the girls approaching the adults and immediately brandishing or initiating assault, the girls are, in my opinion, in the right. The longer we go without seeing the video, the more my priors shift toward the girls being in the right. I see no reason to blindly trust the authorities or presume that their secret judgements are valid, and my priors on their interest in an incident like this one are fairly strong.

I want to see that video. If it shows anything other than the girls approaching the adults and immediately brandishing or initiating assault, the girls are, in my opinion, in the right. The longer we go without seeing the video, the more my priors shift toward the girls being in the right.

Just to point out in other cases the CCTV is often never released. For example the Rivera case where three teen girls killed a Bolivian man in London, was mostly caught on CCTV, but only a few heavily blurred stills were ever released. Interestingly there too the girls claimed the man harassed them, but witnesses contradicted that and all three girls pled guilty to manslaughter.

So I am not sure CCTV not being released should change your priors much one way or the other.

Also it was in Scotland not England. Which doesn't really change the point about the cameras but might save you some harsh words from some of my more nationalistic brethren.

I'm given to understand that Urban England does not suffer from a paucity of security cameras.

This isn't Urban England! It's Urban Scotland!

When I first set foot in London, several years back, I was distinctly unsettled by the sheer number of security cameras around. In the central parts, there were more of them than the stop signs.

Scotland? Far, far fewer. You can hop into Google Maps like I just did and check out that bit of Dundee, the only cameras I can see are private security cams, and not that many. That is not the same claim as saying that the police don't have footage, they likely do, but even the UK isn't a homogenous surveillance state.

Did the adults actually throw the kid to the ground and kick her in the head? Is there any evidence of this in the video or from the aftermath: dirt on her clothes, scrapes or bruises, bloody nose, split lip, any evidence of physical harm?

The GSG excerpt above talks about three girls; the two sisters in the video, plus their friend Ruby -- who was allegedly attacked. If she'd taken off while Lola was arming herself, the video more or less adds up?

Did the adults actually throw the kid to the ground and kick her in the head? Is there any evidence of this in the video or from the aftermath: dirt on her clothes, scrapes or bruises, bloody nose, split lip, any evidence of physical harm?

The GSG excerpt above talks about three girls; the two sisters in the

Someone else in the thread has cited hospital records of treatment for a concussion, so it looks like there was in fact violence inflicted on at least one of the girls.

More comments

If she'd taken off while Lola was arming herself, the video more or less adds up?

If this happened they way the anons / crowdfunders describe, I'd guess she took off after Lola showed up. The dude was tormenting Ruby, Lola comes back armed and tells him to leave her alone, he turns around, takes one look and says "oh, ain't that cute, let me get my phone, I have to record it".

Did the adults actually throw the kid to the ground and kick her in the head? Is there any evidence of this in the video or from the aftermath: dirt on her clothes, scrapes or bruises, bloody nose, split lip, any evidence of physical harm?

Apparently the child was treated for a concussion and there is a hospital record to prove this

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