site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   28326 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

came to the conclusion that judging individuals by their race/ethnicity is dangerous, and ought to be treated as radioactive

As somebody who moved from 'commited to colourblindness' in 2010 to what you call "the 13/52 crowd", I suggest you consider carefully if this achieves what you want. There is nothing more radicalising than having people demand that you shut off your eyes, ears and brain to what any fool can clearly observe.

  • No, my white-haired posh dad taking his son to school is not going to be carrying a zombie knife, Mr. Policeman. You and I know this perfectly well, and we know this is just theater because you're not allowed to just go a few blocks over and search all the black teen gangbangers who do.
  • Yes, pretty much every horrible murder and mass stabbing these days is done by a brown or a black man. No, I am not fooled by your steadfast determination to avoid mentioning his race or you referring to him as a 'British citizen' because I possess the mystical art to distinguish between 'Tom Rutherford' and 'Axel Rudakubana' and to google photos of the bastard.
  • Black people commit eight times as many murders as white ones, according to the former head of the Metropolitan Police in a rare moment of candour. Yes, I expect you to do something with this information because protecting the public is your job. I also note that this has been memory-holed to such an extent that I was only able to find it using DuckDuckGo on a webarchive.
  • "Police hold black men responsible for more than two-thirds of shootings and more than half of robberies and street crimes in London, according to figures released by Scotland Yard."

In short, mild discrimination and clear explanations of why that discrimination exists is the only thing that can make multiethnic societies work long-term. As the Denmark authorities say, "obviously we release ethnic statistics, otherwise how could the public trust us?" (paraphrased, I don't have the exact quote).

If you are a pleasant, good-hearted young black man as many are, your greatest fear should be the kind of system that refuses to recognise or guard against the increased threat that you potentially represent, or to impose the social norms of your new home upon you, causing people to shun you in any way they can possibly get away with as in America until the cognitive dissonance finally becomes too much and their grandchildren bring in something far worse. Not to mention that it is of course the best way of protecting you from your co-ethnics.

EDIT: I tell a lie, there is one thing more radicalising. The mealy-mouthed apologetics given by these same people to excuse straightforward racism when it's aimed at whites. I don't accuse you of this but it's all too common.

EDIT EDIT: Perhaps this is a little heated, and for that I apologise. You are not personally to blame for all of the racial dysfunction in Britain. But really, really, try to believe me when I say that what you want is not going to be achieved by the methods you suggest. Moderation is important even in non-discrimination.

Isla Bryson pretty much single-handedly brought down the Scottish government, the most pro-trans government around, and completely tanked their agenda and destroyed the pro-trans movement in the UK. It could all have been avoided if the Scottish government and the trans movement had just been willing to say 'no, the tattooed rapist who decided to be trans five seconds before his court case doesn't get to go to a women's prison'.

In short, mild discrimination and clear explanations of why that discrimination exists is the only thing that can make multiethnic societies work long-term.

No, the only thing that can make multiethnic societies work long-term is treating people as individuals rather than avatars of a racial collective.

Yes, I expect you to do something with this information because protecting the public is your job.

The thing to do with the information is to arrest and prosecute the individual black people who commit murder under the same standards as one does when a white person commits murder, and mutatis mutandis for other crimes.

Maybe it would be easier in the short term to haul the 'Black Race' before a magistrate and sentence them to a police regime that makes North Korea look like the Wild West, but that's why there's a Stairway To Heaven and a Highway To Hell.

recognise or guard against the increased threat that you potentially represent

shun you in any way they can possibly get away with

"They're the same picture."

Both of these come from a random Black person being judged not by his own actions but by the actions of people who resemble him. One may be state action while the other is un-coördinated private action, but to the Black man, day after day, being treated as guilty until proven innocent, watching his white neighbours enjoy the presumption of innocence he is denied through no fault of his own, the two are much of a muchness.

The mealy-mouthed apologetics given by these same people to excuse straightforward racism when it's aimed at whites.

I oppose that also; it just doesn't get defended here as much.

I am against it for the following reasons:

  1. It is wrong in itself.

  2. It undermines the credibility of those opposing racism aimed at other groups.

  3. Did I mention that racism, against white people as against any other group, is wrong?

(those that favour the 'prejudice plus power' definition of 'racism': you can substitute 'racial discrimination' if you would prefer, but don't think I haven't Noticed your attempts to amass the kind of structural power you attribute to white people)

It could all have been avoided if the Scottish government and the trans movement had just been willing to say 'no, the tattooed rapist who decided to be trans five seconds before his court case doesn't get to go to a women's prison'.

...and then a week later she gets assaulted/raped/murdered by the cis-male inmates, people send Strongly Worded Letters asking "what were you thinking‽", and they have a much more principled case:

If you as a government take up the habit of confining people somewhere where they can neither defend themselves nor avoid potential violence, you have the responsibility to protect all of them. Not 'the ones that aren't scary', not 'the ones that have or had uteruses', not 'the ones that fit into your idea of how men and women ought to present themselves', not 'most of them', all of them.

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