site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26119 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 quoted article points out that many of them are adopting American names "to fit in better", like the pastor. Doesn't sound like people who don't want to assimilate.

That's typical of Koreans who aren't intending to assimilate (or stay), so it doesn't really mean anything.

Assimilation is largely a myth but even if it weren't, changing a name is hardly evidence of it. Do they speak foreign languages, eat foreign food, practice foreign customs?

Most importantly, do they politically agitate in favor of their racial group and dilute the political power of the native white population? Even if there economic benefits to the native population, and that's hardly a given, that doesn't excuse transforming the local community into a non-white area in a generation. The white Americans in this community did not ask to be abused and erased.

The white Americans in this community did not ask to be abused and erased

Realistically, if you’re hiring for factory hands among the population of south GA, they’re going to be black.

Assimilation is largely a myth

Doesn't match my experience. I've seen a ton of assimilated second-generation Asians, for example - most of them don't even speak the language of their parents (somewhat inconvenient when you need to translate something in Chinese and you know this guy whose parents are definitely from China but turns out he at best knows Chinese at kindergarten level, or less), don't associate exclusively with their ethnic community, don't keep any old customs (maybe except occasional family holidays or such). And of course I know many, many assimilated Jews. And, Trump himself is an assimilated second-generation German - we don't see him speaking German or donning lederhosen on Oktoberfest, do we? (I'm not sure that's what real un-assimilated Germans actually do, but whatever they do, Trump doesn't do that).

It does match my experience. Even when mostly assimilated, foreigners remain very, very foreign in ways you can't always see.

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land Shall repossess his blood.

They think and vote and act on juries as if they're foreigners, and once you notice that, a name change becomes meaningless.

Even when mostly assimilated, foreigners remain very, very foreign in ways you can't always see.

Yes, I must admit, I never understood Trump's love for greasy fast food. Those Germans and their Teutonic ways...

I'd prefer a borderer or WASP to a tueton, and I'd prefer my borderer to be married to an American and not a foreigner. At least he's half-scot.

But you dance with the one that brought you, and you fight with the soldiers you have.

Asians form their own ethnic interests groups and overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. These ethnic interest groups agitate to the disadvantage of the native population. When the native population protests they are called racist.

Asians form their own ethnic interests groups and overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

This is how assimilation into Blue America looks like. No such thing as current Democratic party platform is conceivable in Asian countries, it is purely American creation.

No such thing as current Democratic party platform is conceivable in Asian countries

No, but nor is there some sort of inherent immunity from western-style progressivism in epicanthic folds; sometimes Asian progressivism is more extreme than the western version.

Western style progressivism is the (still) most prestigious memeplex in the world, it is easy to understand why people all over the world want to immitate it (without fully understanding the nuances).

As for assimilation, it is going on stronger and faster than ever, only the assimilation is not going the way you would prefer.

Imagine some far away country, split roughly equally between Sunnis and Shiites, except that the split is not equal.

Sunnis tend to live in cities, control the media, bureaucracy and secret services, the wealthy, powerful and influential tend to be Sunni in way disproportionate ratio, while Shiites tend to be poor underprivileged country folk.

If you came to this country and wanted to stay there and assimilate, would you go to Sunni or Shiite mosque?

If you came to this country and wanted to stay there and assimilate, would you go to Sunni or Shiite mosque?

I would go to the one that is not saying my kind is not welcome, duh!

If you came to this country and wanted to stay there and assimilate, would you go to Sunni or Shiite mosque?

Which ones are telling me my people should go extinct?

purely American creation

That's a bit far. I think they'd fit right into Europe.

This only proves that they are assimilating into the White European culture of the blue tribe.

Asians form their own ethnic interests groups

Some do, sure. But there's no such thing as "Asian ethnic interests" - why Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Sikh and Indonesians would have the same interests? I've met many people of different Asian descent, and they had very varied interests - I can't imagine how a single group would be able to represent them.

These ethnic interest groups agitate to the disadvantage of the native population

Do they? Any substantiation of that? I am sure some particular group of, say, Indians may agitate to the disadvantage some particular group of, say, Norwegians (of course, when I say Indian, I mean American person of Indian descent, and so on). But (leaving aside the definition of "native population", which I am sure you will provide me with in the other branch) claiming every Asian group always would advocate a policy that is contrary to the interest of every single "native" group seems to need a very extraordinary proof. At least it is not at all obvious why it would happen, so if you want somebody to believe it it makes sense to try and prove it.

When the native population protests they are called racist.

I am pretty sure if you think that every Asian by their mere genetic buildup has interests that are all the same and are always opposed to the interests of all people who are not Asian, that is the textbook definition of racism. In fact, if I needed to define the set of ideas that are based on this assumption, I would think "racism" is the best term that would describe it. I mean, if the race is the sole criteria you are looking at, how else would one call it?

Some do, sure. But there's no such thing as "Asian ethnic interests" - why Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Sikh and Indonesians would have the same interests? I've met many people of different Asian descent, and they had very varied interests - I can't imagine how a single group would be able to represent them.

First generation yes. As you get further from the original immigration, people are much more likely to form pan-ethnic support groups for 'people who look kind of like me and have my kinds of issues'. A second-generation Indonesian is quite likely to feel they have a lot common with the second-generation Taiwanese and Japanese boys who can relate to overbearing parents, not really fitting in with your customs from the old place and the fact that white girls don't seem to go for Asian men, or whatever. Especially as they start marrying each other within that group.

Not in all cases, certainly, but in enough to matter.

(India and Sikh etc. are more different. I would expect to end up with a generic East Asian identity rather than anything).

Not in all cases, certainly, but in enough to matter.

Enough to matter for what? The claim was they form interests group which are detrimental to "native whites" (whoever that be). There's a big difference between kvetching about overbearing mothers (certainly no "native white" ever had one of those) and conspiring to take down the whites.

Enough to produce a cohesive pan-East-Asian political movement that can push strongly for desired outcomes on issues that matter to this new, more cohesive group.

Given that native whites are not allowed to coordinate any political movement that directly represents their own interests, and that these issues whatever they turn out to be are not likely to 100% beautiful win-wins for everyone involved, these are likely to come at some expense to whites.

they form interests group which are detrimental to "native whites"

conspiring to take down the whites

These two things are not the same. The existence and tolerance of non-white racial blocs and only non-white racial blocs can be detrimental to white people without any malice or conspiracy required.

Do they? Any substantiation of that?

I mean, there's an Issue with immigration from mainland China, which is that the CPC uses various means to weaponise the Chinese diaspora and the CPC is not our friend. There are legit reasons to want relatively few literal enemy agents in one's country.

This has nothing to do with racism; this issue doesn't apply to Taiwanese (many of whom are Han), (South) Koreans or Japanese, because Taiwan, South Korea and Japan don't have governments hostile to us and ruthless enough to pull this shit. It also mostly doesn't apply to ethnic Chinese whose ancestors immigrated way back, as they're culturally assimilated and don't typically have close family members in mainland China to be taken hostage.

The concern about CPC influence is not racist and is reasonable, but that wasn't @NYTReader's claim. His claim was about "Asians" - which covers the whole continent (in UK, Pakistanis are called "Asians", and why not - Pakistan is in Asia), or, more charitably, everybody who looks certain way - whether they are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Kazakh, Uzbek or none of the above, and ignoring when and under which circumstances they came into the country. I can't see it but as pure racism. And it never made any sense.

I just felt it was worth pointing out (and noting the boundaries of) the big exception where those interest groups are straight-up "the enemy".

Yes, I certainly agree specific groups can be evil and pointing it out on specific basis is not only not racist but also entirely correct thing to do, even it it concerns people of some specific racial background. What I object is a blanket characterization like "Asians form groups that do evil things". It loses specificity to the point it becomes useless and stupid.

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