site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26083 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

The screenshot is right there in my original post, but the source is the anons following the case, so it still could be a TracingWoodgrainesque hoax. I wish the local media could get the girls' side of the story but they're all awfully quiet on that.

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