site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24149 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 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.

I have heard variations of '[X group] is the worst, and the more people are exposed the more they agree' of just about every variation of [X group] that has been a critical mass growing minority elsewhere.

The process of being distinct and displacing the familiar is itself what is unpleasant and unadmirable to many host nations, regardless of what continent the arrival comes from.

I mean it definitely doesn't seem to have been true of Mexicans. Even in the early 2000's when 'immigration' was a euphemism for 'Mexicans' people mostly didn't seem to have big problems with Mexican culture- maybe some griping they didn't learn English fast enough, but people thought they were mostly normal blue collar guys who worked hard and liked beer and sports.

There was a point in time, after the Mexican-American war where Mexican lynchings were greater than black lynchings in some Western states. The relative peacefulness we see now took a long time to generate.

Mexicans sit in a weird niche where they've technically been present much, much longer than alot of other ethnic groups(since atleast the 1800s) while simultaneously having a local source right next to America that provides a constant stream of 'fresh off the boat'(unlike other groups).

And, despite being around for so long, there was still a large action to deport illegals in the 1950s.

An addendum:

White, appalachian young men and women date, have children, and even sometimes marry latino / black spouses with enough regularity that nobody outside of the deepest hollers really cares (although, strangely, they'll still use racial slurs).

This is not the case with Indians. Furthermore, this isn't just an availability bias. The small cities on the edges of Appalachia are starting to see Indian transplants.

I don’t know about Appalachians specifically but whites and Hispanics intermarry regularly- especially white man/hispanic woman. I can’t say anyone would care if it was white/black instead but it’s considerably less common.

I think there's truth to both of these points. The displacement in my area is real. The further south I go in my city, the more like Mexico it becomes. Some houses that used to have one family now hold 2 or 3, or even 4. My kid's school is probably 50% Hispanic, and every time I go to a parent-teacher meeting I hear teachers speaking Spanish to the students.

Now, when it comes to displacement, a change in language and pop-up vendors all over the place isn't exactly terrible. Mexicans do seem to share a lot of cultural similarities. That being said, the less tangible but very real feeling of being minoritized in the place you and your parents grew up is constantly increasing.

As I said, the dynamic isn't unique but it also doesn't mean that the relative badness and the particular dynamics of the changing immigration of a specific group leads to a worsening impression of the specific group.

Also, there are tons of groups that caused very limited friction when they immigrated and it has limited correlation with how "familiar" the group is.

There are cultures that are bad and my contention is that subcontinental culture (I should have said that originally instead of Indian because much of the same issues exists for Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, and often regardless of religion) is both worse and that immigration from the subcontinent scales worse than from other relevant immigration sources, especially for white collar labour.

Over here in Sweden subcontinentals aren't a very big group but despite this they're still easily the most disliked and made fun of group in workplace environments.

Over here in Sweden subcontinentals aren't a very big group but despite this they're still easily the most disliked and made fun of group in workplace environments.

I'd have said MENA Muslims are more disliked.

In general absolutely, but not in the workplace.

Also, there are tons of groups that caused very limited friction when they immigrated and it has limited correlation with how "familiar" the group is.

Which, in turn, is sidestepping the point of 'critical mass' and 'displacing local culture with their own.'

The uncanny valley effect applies as much to cultural trappings as human faces. An english-speaker in a city full of english-language signs can feel comfortable, even if there are the occasional oddities of atypical roofings or words. An english-speaker in a city of completely unfamiliar languages may not feel completely at home, but accept it as categorically foreign. It is when the city is in the process of the halfway transition between one or the other, and particularly when moving from the familiar to the alien, that unease rises.

In Sweden, in 1980 7% of the population was foreign-born. In 2000, it was about 11%. In 2020, it is roughly 20%. It is historical circumstance that that later growth was more from sub-continentals than less familiar continentals. Unease and opposition to the foreigner would still be on the rise if it was Russians or French driving that demographic change.

You don't even have to reach into alternate history to find examples of dislike of French or Russian culture following from the French or Russian leaving their borders into others and their new hosts having to deal with it.

Except of course that there aren't many subcontinentals coming here and they're still disliked... People aren't complaining about subcontinentals due to displacement but because they dislike them. The situation is different from the Anglophone world.

Just because displacement is a cause for animosity doesn't mean that there aren't other causes and that different groups are perceived differently relative to each other.

Except of course that there aren't many subcontinentals coming here

There are. 'Many' is a wiggle-word, but there are enough coming that their presence is notable, even if more recent arrivals are just more proximal / visible examples of the broader trend of other migrants coming in and replacing cultural symbols rather than adopting them.

"Ok"

I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey here, but it’s looking awfully lazy.

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