site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   27569 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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 stopped reading the article when I reached this point:

shaped by history, power and context.

I interpret this to mean "What follows is a bunch of Leftist sophistry in defense of double-standards, hypocrisy, and general dunking on one or more of the outgroups of progressives"

Anyway, one thing that's interesting to me about Indians in the United States is that they are facing a similar issue to Orientals (i.e. East Asians). Which is that by and large, their daughters seem to have little problem dating white guys and in many cases actually prefer white guys over men from their own race. At the same time, white women seem to have comparatively little interest in dating Indian-American guys. It seems some Indian guys are able to overcome the negative stereotypes around Indian men -- for example if the guy is tall, strong, assimilated, and works as an analyst for Goldman Sachs. In that case, there's a good chance he will go for a white girl.

In other words, there seems to be kind of a self-hating element in Indian behavior when it comes to dating and mating. From that perspective, it does make sense for Indian parents to urge their children to marry other Indians. I myself don't have a problem with it, I just wish people would be more tolerant of whites who prefer to maintain their European heritage.

As a side note, it does seem that generally speaking white people more or less represent the standard of attractiveness/desirability in the world and have for some time. With respect to white women, I recall reading somewhere that during the days of African piracy, lighter skinned women carried a higher price in slave markets. I'm not sure about men. Perhaps after Europeans conquered and dominated the world, women of all races started associating white men with power and status.

As a side note, it does seem that generally speaking white people more or less represent the standard of attractiveness/desirability in the world and have for some time. With respect to white women, I recall reading somewhere that during the days of African piracy, lighter skinned women carried a higher price in slave markets. I'm not sure about men. Perhaps after Europeans conquered and dominated the world, women of all races started associating white men with power and status.

I think it's even more soft than hard power, nowadays. In my observations, those who prefer East Asian media over American media also tend to value partners of the corresponding ethnicity higher, which is relevant as the bubbles in which this preference has reached fixation keep getting bigger and more mainstream. I have already seen social groups in which the (comparatively handsome, successful) white guys quietly mald as the resident loose girls openly prefer to chase mediocre Japanese and Korean guys.

Which is that by and large, their daughters seem to have little problem dating white guys and in many cases actually prefer white guys over men from their own race.

Really? South Asian female spaces frequently complain about lack of interest from non-South Asian men relative to East/Southeast Asian women. And while they're probably doing better than the guys, dating =/= marriage, which is an important distinction. Actual intermarriage rates are the lowest out of all Asian American groups, across both sexes.

Really? South Asian female spaces frequently complain about lack of interest from non-South Asian men relative to East/Southeast Asian women.

Yeah, when I said "little problem," I mainly meant "little objection to" That being said, my sense is that in the United States, a South Asian woman who is otherwise attractive will not have much difficulty attracting a white man. Although perhaps an Oriental (East Asian) or white woman would have even less difficulty.

Actual intermarriage rates are the lowest out of all Asian American groups, across both sexes.

I'm not surprised about that at all. I think young South-Asians in the US are -- generally speaking -- put under a great deal of family pressure to refrain from marrying out.

Yeah I'd agree with this. All things equal, South Asian men are dealing with a -5 modifier in the market and South Asian women are probably dealing with a -1 modifier. The market skews female controlled, though

Precisely this. East Asian men, by contrast, have something like a -2 or -3 handicap on average* while the women have a +5 buff

*though these days it is very context-dependent; e.g., Korean men have a big advantage with white female K-pop fans

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