site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26973 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.

I do not think "white people" have had the "racial consciousness" you assert and advocate until recently, historically.

You are just flatly wrong, you can look at Thomas Jefferson's writings for who counted as "White." It's basically algebra. The question concerned them as well. Racial consciousness was the status quo until very recently but people like you are duped into thinking we always thought the way you do today. They did not. As late as 1923 an Indian Sikh was denied citizenship by the Supreme Court for not being White, and the Indian's argument was not even against the letter of the law but claiming that Indians are Aryan. Can't you imagine me on the Supreme Court hearing this argument and denying an Indian citizenship for claiming to be Aryan?

The Court unanimously rejected Thind's argument, adding that Thind did not meet a "common sense" definition of white, ruling that Thind could not become a naturalized citizen. The Court concluded that "the term 'Aryan' has to do with linguistic, and not at all with physical characteristics, and it would seem reasonably clear that mere resemblance in language, indicating a common linguistic root buried in remotely ancient soil, is altogether inadequate to prove common racial origin.

Wow, sounds like I could have been on SCOTUS in 1923. I would have even written a better opinion given I'm acquainted with the "Indians are Aryan saar" line of argument. Whereas you deny that they had this sort of racial consciousness in the first place. You are just so brainwashed by -current day- you can't even relate to the consciousness of the country 100 years ago. There are Americans today who were alive when SCOTUS made that decision. Isn't it amazing how everything turned on a dime?

You simultaneously endorse shunning Jews-as-Jews from society but complain that, thus shunned, they continue to band together and maintain their own society. You can't tell people "We hate you and won't accept you, but don't you dare stick together out of self-defense."

Jews should be treated no differently than Jews treat Whites. No more no less. Take the ADL, AIPAC, American Jewish Congress- invert it. And Jews were accepted, but they used their acceptance to attain power and promote their own culture and identity at the expense of their outgroup.

Do Christians also have to reject their god? Are you a "Christianity is a Jew-cucked slave morality cult" white nationalist? Or are you a "Judeo-Christianity is a Jew lie" white nationalist?

They ought to, but it wouldn't be a requirement in the same way. If Christians did what Jews do, it would be a requirement, but they don't so it isn't.

There are atheistic Jews today with no connection to the Jewish religion, but you still accuse them of Jewing Jewishly.

Atheistic Jews still very frequently identify as Jews. See Eric Weinstein flipping off the Arch of Titus when he visited Rome. He's still offended by that 2000 year old offense to Jews. He's still a Jew even if he's an Atheist. Yes, if they want to be on my side they have to let that go. If they aren't willing to then that just proves they are on their own side doesn't it?

Jews would never let me into their ingroup. Maybe if I did a full conversion process and renounced any previous religious identities. Even then it will be difficult. Sorry, but if a Jew is claiming to be one of us within my in-group then it's a minimum expectation they depart from their Jewish identity. If they aren't willing to that shows they belong to a different tribe.

people like you are duped into thinking we always thought the way you do today.

You're being very lazy. When I say whites didn't have racial consciousness as whites, I don't mean I believe Thomas Jefferson or the 1920s Supreme Court believed all races are the same. I mean you are trying to construct a pan-white brotherhood based solely on European ancestry that did not exist.

Jews should be treated no differently than Jews treat Whites.

Concretely, what does this mean? I know you think (almost) all Jews are involved in some conspiracy to destroy white people, though the mechanics seem to be basically using social influence and democratic processes to make society more liberal? So how would you reverse uno the Jews?

Atheistic Jews still very frequently identify as Jews.

Okay, so thanks for confirming that there's no realistic way any Jew could be regarded as acceptable to you, regardless of his individual beliefs. If a Jew actually said "okay, I no longer identify as a Jew, I am just a white American," you would say "lol no."

You're being very lazy. When I say whites didn't have racial consciousness as whites, I don't mean I believe Thomas Jefferson or the 1920s Supreme Court believed all races are the same.

What do you think racial consciousness is? What do you think was going through the minds of SCOTUS when they wrote their opinion? That is racial consciousness. Indians aren't White- no citizenship sorry. That was SCOTUS in 1923 but here you are in 2026 saying they didn't have racial consciousness as whites. It's just absurd to be honest. There were antimiscegenation laws, segregation, on the basis of White but nope no racial consciousness as Whites! Even though segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were based on "White" vs "non-White."

Do you want to read this 1909 speech by Roosevelt and tell me he didn't have racial consciousness as a white as he repeatedly references the "White race"? Or how about that other speech where he warns about avoiding Race Suicide? You are just flatly wrong, you have been tricked.

Okay, so thanks for confirming that there's no realistic way any Jew could be regarded as acceptable to you, regardless of his individual beliefs. If a Jew actually said "okay, I no longer identify as a Jew, I am just a white American," you would say "lol no."

If a Jew says "I'm not a jew" and doesn't retain identity as a Jew that's a different then an atheistic Jew who identifies as a Jew like Eric Weinstein. Being an atheist isn't enough. If you identify as a Jew you're a Jew, whether theistic or atheist, and if you don't you aren't. Simple as. True there's not consensus among the DR on that point but that's the position I support.

Do you believe Jews have a race consciousness as Jews?

You are just flatly wrong, you have been tricked.

Dude, I know history better than you do. You just keep repeating things that intentionally miss the point.

Do you believe Jews have a race consciousness as Jews?

Yes and no. They have ethnic and religious consciousness as Jews, but not all Jews are Ashkenazi and my understanding is there is actually some racial division within the Jewish community. What you're really asking me is "Are Jews tribal? As tribal as I want whites to be?" And the answer is yes. That said, when people like you want them to cease existing ("as Jews, in Minecraft"), of course they are going to be tribal. Historically, people like you are the reason Jews are so tribal. Yes, I know your version is that they started it and if Jews didn't act so Jewish people wouldn't hate them.

That said, when people like you want them to cease existing ("as Jews, in Minecraft"), of course they are going to be tribal.

Then why are you so shocked that antisemitism is growing among Whites as they become aware of the cultural mechanisms that have vilified White identity and engaged in strong activism against it? You are once again just angry that I am posturing towards Jewish identity in the same way the Jews posture against White identity.

That said, when people like you want them to cease existing ("as Jews, in Minecraft"), of course they are going to be tribal.

Only after decades of Whites trying to make a "greatest ally" of Jews, considering them beyond reproach in all regards, while simultaneously accepting that whites themselves cease existing. We already tried the "make the Jews Allies" and that is why we are here today. They can't be allies. If individual Jews want to let go of their Jewish identities they can be Allies. If they identify with that tribe they are not allies, and the underlying cause for that is the Jewish tribalism you acknowledge. Yes, maybe my position would intensify Jewish tribalism. And that will in turn increase Antisemitism. That is what is happening today, this feedback loop is in motion as we speak. I am advocating to continue that feedback loop of White criticism of Jews and Jewish response with more overt tribalism. That's the answer. If Jews want to be on our side they have to be on our side and no longer identify as Jews, otherwise by definition they are not on our side.

Jews did not relinquish their tribalism at the height of White acceptance of Jews (they did everything that ye olde antisemites accused them of doing for hundreds of years). They used it to advance their own cultural and geopolitical objectives at our own enormous expense, and they took advantage of our goodwill.

I'm not shocked or angry. Again, why do y'all project so much?

Very simply, I think you are factually wrong and your views are both ahistorical and malign, leading to conflict and animosity that is the desired goal of certain types of people, but not better for humanity as a whole. Which I do not limit to "white people" because I also think tribal zero-sum conflict is bad.

We've been living in conflict and animosity towards us our entire lives. The conflict and animosity has always been here dude! It's just been a one-sided conflict until now.

We've been living in conflict and animosity towards us our entire lives. The conflict and animosity has always been here dude! It's just been a one-sided conflict until now.

We have been living in conflict and animosity for all of human history, but violence, and specifically inter-tribal conflict, is actually at a historical low, particularly in the West. To the degree that it goes up, it is owing more to people like you, who fan your personal resentments and animosities and try to exhort others to join in violent conflict against your outgroup, than Jews. Jews did not start the wars, Jews did not create culture war, and Jews are participants, like you and me, and not puppet-masters.

I would like to reduce conflict, and you want to exacerbate it.

Jews did not start the wars, Jews did not create culture war, and Jews are participants, like you and me, and not puppet-masters.

Yes I agree it's an "always has been" problem. The literal bible was inspired by culture war. Jews vs Civilization, over and over. That doesn't really help your argument though. You can't just walk away from the conflict and not participate, that doesn't stop others from participating or taking advantage of your submissiveness. Inter-tribal conflict is at an all-time high owing to massive demographic change in the US and Europe and us being politically and culturally disarmed from resisting.

You are just advocating for unilateral disarmament, the same strategy we've practiced for the past 50 years.

In your mind Open-Borders advocacy is the absence of tribal conflict, and opposing it is the presence of tribal conflict. They both are.

More comments

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