site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   24651 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 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.

In other words, a group that was entitled to government assistance that would largely be paid for by someone else argued that they didn't need as much of it as was publicly assumed. In any other context, the conservative reaction would be to hold them up as paragons of virtue who were willing to be self-reliant and solve their own problems without the assistance of government. But in this particular context that was totally unacceptable, and they insisted that these groups accept as much of their assistance as they deemed necessary.

I don't think so. As far as I can tell, what progressives want from a police force is to limit the negative externalities of crime to the victims without limiting the negative externalities to the perpetrators (optionally, provided the perpetrators are of the appropriate skin tone). Because these two goals are obviously mutually exclusive (yes, having an active police presence in a neighbourhood might discourage crime, but in practice the only way to deal with criminals is by arresting them and sending them to prison), progressives are stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's a bit like a thermostat: when the rate of crime gets high enough, they will complain about police officers being too busy sitting on their asses eating donuts to actually do their jobs. When it drops, they will immediately pivot to complaining about police brutality, "driving while black", BLM and so on. Sometimes they'll even manage to complain about under- and over-policing at the same time, somehow.

It is possible to underpolice and overpolice at the same time. It's the equivalent of anarcho-tyranny. You can underpolice against criminals and overpolice against basically innocent people (which is what "driving while black" means). You can even overpolice and underpolice against criminals at the same time if you don't catch enough of them but are brutal towards the ones you do catch.

Of course it's possible. I just don't really believe overpolicing is happening in the US to any significant degree. Progressive complaints about alleged overpolicing in the US generally tend to boil down to incredulity over the idea that different ethnic groups could commit crimes at different rates, and hence that the different arrest rates between different ethnic groups must be indicative of systemic bias (and hence overpolicing) on the part of the police.

Unfortunately in the meantime the CIA had decided they wanted to be their own independent nation state, and determined that the best way to do that was to flood a bunch of communities with cheap cocaine. So you had urban drug paramilitaries forming, and those areas started to become everyone’s problem.

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.

The CIA created the crack cocaine epidemic in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The twofold purpose was to destroy black Americans, and to create a massive war chest free of Congressional oversight. Then they did it to white Americans 20 years later with the fentanyl epidemic and blamed China (and now recently Venezuela). People with their heads firmly lodged up their asses refer to this as a “conspiracy theory”, a term the CIA invented to shame people for paying attention.

Then they did it to white Americans 20 years later with the fentanyl epidemic and blamed China (and now recently Venezuela). People with their heads firmly lodged up their asses refer to this as a “conspiracy theory”

Something about proactively providing evidence for inflammatory claims.

Is this before or after Yakub created white people?

Depends if you're a Reformist or Orthodox NOI member.

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