site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   25290 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.

As a South Asian, daughter of immigrants and granddaughter of refugees, who is also married to a White man

The “SJW in the streets, KKK in the sheets” trope strikes again.

We have to consider that the difference in how we label these behaviors between a “White family” and “non-White family” isn’t arbitrary; it’s shaped by history, power and context. Racism and prejudice are about privilege and advantage. When White families insist on “staying within their race,” it’s often tied to a long history of exclusion, segregation and maintaining dominance or supremacy. When immigrant or non-White families express similar preferences, it’s often rooted in something else — survival, cultural preservation and fear of loss.

Shaped by history, power and context, got it. That is, shaped by just-so stories for justifying Who? Whom? The paragraph feels like Poe's Law.

Just like how white people staying where they are is segregation and white people moving out is colonialism: white men choosing to date/marry white women is racist and Problematic, and white men choosing to date/marry non-white women is exploitative and betrays a colonialist, fetishist mindset. The implied solution for where white people should live is that they shouldn't live; the implied solution for who white men should date/marry is that they shouldn't date/marry.

It's somewhat more mixed for white women though. While white women choosing to date/marry white men is similarly racist and Problematic—and white women choosing to date/marry men from high-performing minority groups is weird—in contrast white women choosing to date/marry men from low-performing minority groups is Stunning and Brave and should be encouraged for all. Some pesky wrongthinker further illustrated the Intersectionality with a table.

Theres a series of "takedowns" on the millienal feminism of progressives that internalized the oppression stack meta, with the latest being anything covering Lindy West's autobiography. Its generally unimportant slop featuring handwringing of older women wondering where it all went wrong for feminism, but the most telling is the acknowledgment that the "neuro divergent racial minority" husband of Lindy West may have been exploiting his status as an oppressed minority to excuse his bad behaviors. Getting progressive points for dating shitty self victimizing minorities was always performatively tenuous but women locked into the progressive feedback loop gaslit themselves into accepting shitty behavior from their partners so long as the oppression meta dominated.

The easy solution is to not care about being Problematic, but that needs realization that minorities failing is a function of their own general incompetence, not some vague white privilege people need to be guilted into atoning for.

white people staying where they are is segregation and white people moving out is colonialism

Also white flight vs gentrification. It is very problematic if relatively affluent white people move away or if they move in.

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