site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25031 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The smaller irony is that we can look FURTHER back in history to compare what happens when Italians conquer a place vs. when Muslim Arabs conquer a place: the Roman and Ottoman empires, respectively.

The Ottoman Turks were not Arabs. Turkish immigration has caused its own interesting set of issues, what with Imam Gulem's network of dodgy charter schools, but they are profoundly different to the ones Arabs cause. Turkish Cypriot immigration to the UK has been trouble-free, though it isn't clear if it has been an economic net positive.

If we are keeping score, the Ottoman Empire was also rather less assiduous than the Romans when it comes to persecuting Christians.

I mean if we're being fully clear, Somalis aren't Arabs either.

But its not a stretch to say they'd identify closer with Muslim Turks, or Muslim Palestinians, than Egyptian Christians. Ilhan Omar is a notable example there.

And my historical knowledge on this point is spotty, but the Ottomans are pretty much the direct proximate cause for the Kingdom of Saud arising as a unified Arab Muslim state (yes, the British intervened, but the region's fate had long been shaped by Ottoman influence by then).

All this to say, we've got historical examples of Italian stock assimilating with competing cultures (although co-existence with Germanics has been spotty), and historical examples of various strains of ethnic Muslims absolutely refusing to assimilate with competing cultures, and then going to war with those cultures at the earliest opportunity.

With the huge gaping counterexample of Indonesia, but I've not learned enough of their history to competently comment.

(That's kinda why I chose to broadly paint "Arab" Muslims as the particular discussion point, since there are a few strains that don't have the fearsome reputation).

The actual Arab conquests were also full of forced conversion to Islam, arabization, etc.

Yep. That was the 'trap' I laid in that argument, if someone objects that Ottomans weren't representative. The other examples are worse. Just look at what the Moors did to Spain. Although Christians ultimately returned that favor.

There's some parallels to be drawn WRT to English/American conquest of various Native American tribes... but you can note that once the victory was secure the Americans permit the tribes to continue to exist and maintain a distinct culture as best they can, which has persisted to this day.

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