site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 15, 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.

I'm not entirely opposed to the things you advocate for, but for me this is more of an object-level issue. I really don't want to have to have to compete against a billion Indians, especially when the field has relatively high unemployment at the moment.

I really don't want to have to have to compete against a billion Indians

Sure, that's a valid way to feel, but do you equally accept the arguments of liberal elites who want to exclude US citizen conservatives from being able to compete for elite jobs for the same reason, especially when elite overproduction means their children now have to work harder than they themselves had to for these sorts of positions?

Your culture provides no reciprocity, you advocate for competition because where you come from has nothing to offer us. You appeal to the spirit of competition in order to manipulate us into allowing you into our society. I just don't want to live with you; I don't want you in my neighborhood. I don't want to compete with you- I don't want my children to compete with you. I just don't want you around. You only care about competition because you only get upside from that arrangement, you have nothing at stake. I have my neighborhood at stake, and much more than that from the prospect of allowing millions of Indians to live with me "because competition."

"I really don't want to have to have to compete against a billion Indians" isn't an argument, it's an expression of a preference.

@TheAntipopulist might have some kind of political principle behind his statement, but if he does, he hasn't expressed it. He's just expressed a preference to face less competition from Indians. As for me, personally, I just want to face less economic competition from people in general, it doesn't matter to me whether they're US citizens or foreigners.

As for me, personally, I just want to face less economic competition from people in general, it doesn't matter to me whether they're US citizens or foreigners.

Fair enough, that's actually defensible. I wouldn't agree with it but at least it is a logical reason.

but do you equally accept the arguments of liberal elites who want to exclude US citizen conservatives from being able to compete for elite jobs for the same reason

No, because citizenship actually means something. Which means that, in spite of the countless issues I have with our black underclass, I prioritize them over illegal Mexicans competing for their same jobs.

Citizenship means nothing to me. I just want to have less economic competition, whether it's from other US citizens or from foreigners.

You really ought to try to have some feeling of fellowship with your fellow citizens. At a minimum, pretending that citizenship means nothing is a big part of what allowed the woke madness (especially in regards to immigration) to take hold in the first place. But this (surprisingly coherent) video from Sam Hyde might help convince you for other reasons: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YvcUQI6gAaI?si=yIqiiZSn1C4nAos9

I don't see any reason to have a feeling of fellowship with my fellow citizens, specifically, as opposed to having a feeling of fellowship with groups defined in other ways. But I do see that in certain situations, it is best for society in general to at least pretend to have a feeling of citizenship.

So I think you do have a point about the woke madness.

For me one of the interesting things about immigration is that, I think that for the most part, neither wokes nor right-wingers have any real principles about it.

If most people illegally crossing the US border were white conservative Christians, the wokes would be demanding to build a border wall and the right-wingers would be setting up sanctuary cities.

Indeed, you periodically have US-style conservative Christians who happen to be originally from Germanic Europe illegally immigrate to the US and the political valences are opposite.

Reminds me of reactions to Trump giving white South Africans refugee status.

Now, to be clear, the odd German homeschooler being declared a refugee is genuinely a case of near-immediate assimilation- we know full well that they're going to be basically indistinguishable from the existing US social stratum they're trying to join within a generation. We also know full well that if it becomes a general rule the entire population of China will try to pull the same stunt, of course.

I don't remember much focus on Afrikaaner refugees on the right to begin with, positive or negative.

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