site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   17522 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thanks for raising your hand, bud. Appreciate the support.

What is "Jewish behavior"? What "blowback" do you think the average Jew on the street deserves because of "their" behavior?

You do not distinguish between Israel and Jews except when it's convenient. When it's inconvenient, you are happy to equate Jews=Israel. When it's convenient, you say you are complaining about Israel and that accusing you of antisemitism is a Jewish mind trick.

You complain endlessly about being identified as a Joo-poster, a Jew-hater, it's a "thought-terminating slur," but the one thing you cannot deny is that you hate Jews. It takes some chutzpah (heh) to complain about being called a Jew-hater as you loudly and vocally insist that hating Jews is rational.

The bottom line, the sum total of your presence and reason d'etre, is that you hate Jews. Of course you think your hatred is rational. Everyone thinks they are being rational. No one says "I just hate people for no reason." But you hate Jews and that is the driver behind everything you post. You basically have no other identity or purpose (at least on this forum, maybe somewhere you have a life that doesn't revolve around Jews), but you sure get offended when someone names it.

You complain endlessly about being identified as a Joo-poster, a Jew-hater, it's a "thought-terminating slur," but the one thing you cannot deny is that you hate Jews

No, my complaint is that your argument assumes criticism of Jews is motivated by hatred of Jews rather than criticism of actual Jewish behavior.

Are complaints about Black behavior motivated by some unjustified hatred of Blacks? Or are the complaints about Black behavior caused by Black behavior, and the general opinion of Blacks is downstream from that?

Let's apply your argument: The prevailing complaints about Black behavior are almost entirely derived from racism. There's no truth to any of those complaints, maybe <1% have some truth, but the rest of the complaints and stereotypes are just derived from hatred of black people. Of course you think your hatred is rational. Everyone thinks they are being rational. No one says "I just hate people for no reason", but they in fact hate Blacks for no reason and they deceive themselves into thinking there is a rational justification for their sentiment towards Blacks.

My world: the complaints are almost all true, in fact we vastly understate them in an attempt to be tolerant and smooth social cohesion, maybe <1% of the criticisms are false and derived from racism, and negative opinion of Blacks is downstream from that.

So there's not much to say other than you are wrong, my opinion of Jews is downstream from my analysis of these issues, same as Blacks. If you want to call me a "Black-hater" for concurring with prevailing negative opinions and the reasons for them, that's your prerogative but you're just name-calling.

It takes some chutzpah (heh) to complain about being called a Jew-hater as you loudly and vocally insist that hating Jews is rational.

You can call me a Jew-hater all you want, even though it's against the rules of the forum you moderate. I know that "Jew-hater" means "criticizes Jews in any way", I am not here to contend with the semantics of the insults you use to try to dismiss rational and necessary criticism of important issues.

But you can go ahead and think I hate Mark Levin, Randy Fine, Ben Shapiro, Jared Kushner, Jonathan Greenblatt, Bari Weiss, the ADL, AIPAC, etc. simply because they are Jews I hate for no reason, and my analysis of these issues is just me trying to rationalize my pre-existing hatred. It's your prerogative even though it's very stupid and not true.

So there's not much to say other than you are wrong, my opinion of Jews is downstream from my analysis of these issues, same as Blacks.

Is this an admission that you hate Jews and blacks?

Your argument here, as far as I can tell, is not "I don't hate Jews", but "I hate Jews for good reasons".

To wit, let me ask you plainly: how do you feel about Jews?

The last time we discussed this (ironically, discussing whether you flee debates), I put that question to you bluntly, and you vanished and didn't answer.

Would it be fair to characterise the disagreement, as you see it, along these lines? SecureSignals has a strongly negative opinion of Jews and regularly criticises Jews and Judaism. According to Amadan, this is disconnected from any evidential reasoning, but rather SecureSignals has an abiding prejudice against Jews. According to SecureSignals, this negative opinion is justified by the behaviour of the group he dislikes. Is that what you're clashing about?

Are complaints about Black behavior motivated by some unjustified hatred of Blacks? Or are the complaints about Black behavior caused by Black behavior, and the general opinion of Blacks is downstream from that?

Criticisms of black behavior that generalize to "Therefore I hate blacks because all blacks are guilty by association with the worst examples" is rightfully criticized as racial hatred, yes.

Let's apply your argument: The prevailing complaints about Black behavior are almost entirely derived from racism. There's no truth to any of those complaints, maybe <1% have some truth, but the rest of the complaints and stereotypes are just derived from hatred of black people.

Wrong. That's not my argument. You know this.

You can call me a Jew-hater all you want, even though it's against the rules of the forum you moderate.

Is it inaccurate to say that you hate Jews? Am I wrong, incorrect, misrepresenting you?

I know that "Jew-hater" means "criticizes Jews in any way"

That is wrong, incorrect, and a misrepresentation.

But you can go ahead and think I hate Mark Levin, Randy Fine, Ben Shapiro, Jared Kushner, Jonathan Greenblatt, Bari Weiss, the ADL, AIPAC, etc. simply because they are Jews I hate for no reason

In this very thread I have criticized several of those people. I have in the past criticized the ADL and AIPAC. As I said, I know you have reasons for hating Jews. I just think those reasons are irrational and not worthy of respect.

My opinion of Black people is not derived from the belief they are all guilty of every behavior by association, nor is it with Jews. But that doesn't erase the consequences of the way they tend to behave and its impact on society.

So it's a fine parallel.

The important distinction is that criticism of Blacks is caused by Black behavior. Likewise criticism of Jews is caused by Jewish behavior, it is not "for no reason" like you claimed in your post.

My opinion of Black people is not derived from the belief they are all guilty of every behavior by association, nor is it with Jews. But that doesn't erase the consequences of the way they tend to behave and its impact on society.

So, all of them? Most of them? A third of them? With black behavior, I know what you speak of, though it's a clear minority of blacks who do those things. What about Jews? Exactly what percentage of Jews do you think are guilty of subverting Western civilization and trying to destroy white people?

it is not "for no reason" like you claimed in your post.

One more time: I know you have reasons. They just aren't rational reasons and you generalize from "Some Jewish groups do things I think are bad for me" to "Jews are inherently my enemies."

With black behavior, I know what you speak of, though it's a clear minority of blacks who do those things

Well it only takes a very small percentage that do those things to completely enshittify the place they live doesn't it? Places that ought to be the crowned jewel of my community are no longer safe. Things I grew up doing are no longer safe, places I went to closed down because it. None of those impacts are dependent upon the % of the group that engages in that behavior. Obviously if it were small enough to not have those effects then people wouldn't complain about it.

The % of the Jews that are outright spies and traitors (Shapiro, Fine, Levin, Weiss, Kushner, etc.) is small but big and important enough to have disastrous effects on our country, which we are living through right at this moment. The % of Jews that constructively aid the former with political and cultural support is vastly higher even if they aren't directly engaging in the most destructive behavior- that certainly qualifies as subversion. The % of Jews who oppose and criticize it is extremely small but there are a few.

One more time: I know you have reasons.

Yes I do have my reasons, I don't like my country being subverted by foreigners to be led into disastrous consequences for their own benefit.

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