site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   26051 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In the sense that ANY factual claim about the world has a "non-zero probability."

Correct. 0 And 1 Are Not Probabilities.

So that I can understand your position, please tell me roughly what probability you assign to the following claims:

I am not certain of the exact number, but I believe that Charles Murray and Ibram Kendi are both more confident than is warranted.

And, if I understand you correctly, even the mere possibility of harm is cause to implement a high standard of proof, right?

It increases the standard of proof, to a degree proportional to both the likelihood and severity.

Also, does the same reasoning apply to policies which (1) assume that black underperformance are the result of societal discrimination; and (2) definitely (not possibly,but definitely) cause significant harm to white people?

The same kind of reasoning applies, but not to the same degree. No anti-racist government policy yet implemented in the West has caused as much harm to white people as Jim Crow caused to black people. (Some policies of private entities might qualify.)

Last, can I take it you are abandoning your claim that the norms against racial discrimination established during the Civil Rights Era are eroding at an alarming rate?

No.

If not, what's your evidence for this claim?

My evidence is that I have watched the bloody news for the past quarter-century!

At the turn of the millennium, explicit racism was treated as figuratively radioactive by both sides, and even those who considered people of colour inherently suspicious and 'other' still had to cloak their bigotry in innocent-seeming platitudes; everyone at least paid lip service to the notion that people ought to be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

I am not certain of the exact number

I asked for "rough" numbers. Please provide them.

The same kind of reasoning applies, but not to the same degree. No anti-racist government policy yet implemented in the West has caused as much harm to white people as Jim Crow caused to black people.

Current so-called "anti-racist" (to use your misleading phrase) policies cause DEFINITE harm, as opposed to speculative harm. Also, the societal belief that black underperformance is the result of white misbehavior might lead to far worse harms.

Given that there is both definite harm to whites and the possibility of far worse harm, would you agree that a high standard of proof is necessary before concluding (for purposes of policy) that black underperformance is the result of white misbehavior?

My evidence is that I have watched the bloody news for the past quarter-century!

As another poster requested, please illustrate your claim with three specific news stories.

I asked for "rough" numbers. Please provide them.

Somewhere between 5% and 95%.

Current so-called "anti-racist" (to use your misleading phrase) policies cause DEFINITE harm, as opposed to speculative harm.

But the harm is, so far, smaller. Yes, it has the potential to get worse, which is why some of the wokists' policy proposals are so reckless.

would you agree that a high standard of proof is necessary before concluding (for purposes of policy) that black underperformance is the result of white misbehavior?

Depends on whether you mean 'misbehaviour by some white people, who may or may not even still be alive' or 'misbehaviour by the most recent white people to interact with the black people in question'.

As another poster requested, please illustrate your claim with three specific news stories.

Skokie, Ill., 1977: Municipal authorities prohibit neo-nazis from marching; the closest thing they get to anyone siding with them is the ACLU filing court cases arguing that their opinions, while terrible, cannot technically be made illegal per the 1st Amendment.

Charlottesville, Va., 2017: Far-right mob marches while espousing white-nationalist conspiracy theorieshypotheses; half the frelling country makes excuses for them.

Palm Beach, Fla., 2022: Former U. S. President, and leading candidate for his party in the next election, has dinner with known white supremacist; still gets elected two years later.

Somewhere between 5% and 95%.

And to be clear, that's for both of the two statements?

Yes, it has the potential to get worse, which is why some of the wokists' policy proposals are so reckless.

Ok, fine. And you have already conceded that your proposed super high standard of proof for HBD in connection with policymaking is based on the POTENTIAL for a return to Jim Crow. Agreed?

Depends on whether you mean 'misbehaviour by some white people, who may or may not even still be alive' or 'misbehaviour by the most recent white people to interact with the black people in question'.

Well, please give me your answer for both possibilities.

Skokie, Ill., 1977: Municipal authorities prohibit neo-nazis from marching; the closest thing they get to anyone siding with them is the ACLU filing court cases arguing that their opinions, while terrible, cannot technically be made illegal per the 1st Amendment.

Charlottesville, Va., 2017: Far-right mob marches while espousing white-nationalist conspiracy theorieshypotheses; half the frelling country makes excuses for them.

Palm Beach, Fla., 2022: Former U. S. President, and leading candidate for his party in the next election, has dinner with known white supremacist; still gets elected two years later.

Ok, so in your view, 40 years ago if a presidential candidate met with a white supremacist (as that phrase is currently understood) and claimed that he hadn't known it at the time, even so it would have ruined his chances of being elected. Right?

Also, in your view, demonstrations along the lines of the Charlottesville 2017 demonstration are far more socially acceptable now than they were between 1964 and, let's say, 1994. Right?

Do I understand you correctly?

But the harm is, so far, smaller.

What is the evidence for that?

My evidence is that I have watched the bloody news for the past quarter-century!

Ok. Point to at least three news stories that would back up your claim.

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