site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27234 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But when people in this community use HBD and crime statistics to argue that things Jim Crow and Apartheid were good and just and maybe should even be brought back THAT FUCKING AFFECTS ME. I'M BLACK

Honestly, I don't fucking care. I (and many other "fucking white men" and "stale pale males" or whatever) sat through a lot worse during the earlier parts of the Culture War. I kept arguing back without resorting to insulting outbursts, but even holding my position was sufficient to result in bans and worse. If you can't keep a moderately civil tongue when you're typing (and thus have the ability to tone it down before pushing 'send'), that's on you.

So bring it on! I don't care if we won't win but I'll FIGHT LIKE HELL for my people and if I die I know I'll have died a proud black man who stood for dignity instead of cowering negro who submitted to slavery. I'LL NEVER BE ACCEPT BEING A SLAVE!!!

OK, now I suspect you are not sincere but rather a refugee (or invader) from /r/drama.

I (and many other "fucking white men" and "stale pale males" or whatever) sat through a lot worse during the earlier parts of the Culture War

I think Jim Crow is worse than DEI actually

  • -11

I think Jim Crow is worse than DEI actually

Is it? While Jim Crow was in vogue, USA prospered. The last remnants of Jim Crow fell in 1968 and USA started going to shit in 1971 ...

Dollars to donuts YOU never experienced it. And speaking favorably about Jim Crow isn't Jim Crow. And further, /u/RandomRanger didn't even do that. He pointed out some unfavorable things about blacks, and made some unflattering generalizations against them. But the only things he advocated for (and those only implicitly) is to not let foreign blacks move to Britain, Australia, and America and to not give blacks in those places free stuff and special privileges. But I understand that when one is accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression.

Did you read the second linked comment? He pretty explicitly advocates for the barring of blacks from public office.

Consider a thought experiment - what if all the politicians and powerful officials in America had to be black? Give it 20 years for the effects to settle. What do you expect the outcome would be in terms of performance? Would it look more like a high performance country (Japan, Switzerland) or a low performance country like South Africa? [...] Now consider the reverse. All the politicians and powerful officials in America have to be non-black. Give it 20 years. Would the outcome be better than the alternate? Is the US really losing much by banning them from office? All that would happen is some rioting, which can be quickly and easily put down with a little effort.

Did you read the second linked comment? He pretty explicitly advocates for the barring of blacks from public office.

He actually didn't explictly advocate for that; he presented two thought experiments, one in which all public officeholders were black and one in which they were all non-black, and claimed the outcome would be better in the second. But that's still not "Jim Crow".

Arguing over semantics does you no good. The logic presented in his comment also justifies the mass disenfranchisement of blacks ("as to minimize their deleterious effects on national politics"), their segregation from whites in public spaces ("to spare whites from their criminality"), and the banning of interracial relationships ("to not pollute the white gene pool"), just as any Southerner would understand how to keep the blacks in their place.

Arguing over semantics does you no good.

Semantics is meaning. WTF else are we to argue about, syntax?

And "he implicitly makes arguments which, if extended, would result in segregation" is a long way from (explicitly) advocating for Jim Crow.

I, too, would like to reduce black criminality. I don't want to do it by segregating blacks (I live in a suburban town that has a substantial black population -- this was partially due to black flight from Newark, NJ and its inner suburbs, and those blacks weren't fleeing whites). I want to do it by arresting and convicting actual criminals who commit crimes against persons and property which would be recognized as crimes throughout most of history -- that this might have a by-catch of white criminals also is fine. But I recognize that those caught, at least in most urban and suburban areas of the US, will be rather disproportionately black.

Arguing over semantics does you no good.

It's not semantics. "Implicitly" means a completely different thing than "explicitly", and your argument is nowhere near as strong if you meant the former.

The logic presented in his comment also justifies the mass disenfranchisement of blacks

It might, or it might not, depending on many other factors. Reacting aggressively before determining what he said was true, is actually giving more strength to that argument than he did.

The logic presented in his comment also justifies the mass disenfranchisement of blacks

It might, or it might not, depending on many other factors.

Any other factors in question are contingent on the truth of HBD, which I assume you and I are in agreement on.

"Implicitly" means a completely different thing than "explicitly", and your argument is nowhere near as strong if you meant the former. Reacting aggressively before determining what he said was true, is actually giving more strength to that argument than he did.

RandomRanger's argument is sound, I don't dispute that. Before I elaborate further, I'd like to know: what do you think my argument is?

I think Jim Crow is worse than DEI actually

On the books, its possible, in practice DEI actually held back far more people with potential.

On the books, its possible, in practice DEI actually held back far more people with potential.

The harm from Jim Crow was largely not from the suppression of Black talent, but in the message it sent to the Black man - that even after he was freed, he was still the White man's strict social inferior.

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"-- then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

- Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail

The law is a teacher. If it is correct that is good

Yes, it is good - for Whites. I do not dispute the facts of HBD, I simply note that the interests of the White man and the Black man are fundamentally at odds. I hope dearly it is not so, but this is the only conclusion I can draw.

All of these sting but truth still stings today. Now that there are almost no practical barriers to success, African-Americans still lag behind. They still lag behind fresh-off-the-boat immigrants who recently learned English as a second language.

The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.

I'm curious about what he would have thought of the current state of the respective nations of Asia and Africa. Would he have changed his mind about the necessity of political independence for Africans after witnessing decades of barbaric civil wars, horrible mismanagement... etc?

Can somebody predict the next thing African-Americans will blame their relative lack of success on in the next century?

DEI elevating useless sycophants and grifters, attempting to shoehorn black talent into a 'systemic racist' white academic system instead of focusing efforts on building a separate black one? White people refusing to have children that black parents could send their kids to school with to 'integrate' them? The racist government-subsidized industrial food system? The coke-to-diabetes pipeline? Greedy marketing executives forcing black mothers to feed liquid corn syrup to their innocent children?

Can somebody predict the next thing African-Americans will blame their relative lack of success on in the next century?

DEI elevating useless sycophants and grifters, attempting to shoehorn black talent into a 'systemic racist' white academic system instead of focusing efforts on building a separate black one? White people refusing to have children that black parents could send their kids to school with to 'integrate' them? The racist government-subsidized industrial food system? The coke-to-diabetes pipeline? Greedy marketing executives forcing black mothers to feed liquid corn syrup to their innocent children?

The excuses and just-so narratives can keep coming longer than you can remain solvent.

Institutional Racism
Socioeconomic Factors
Food Deserts
Food Insecurity
Nutritional Inequity <- We’re already here.

The harm from Jim Crow was largely not from the suppression of Black talent, but in the message it sent to the Black man - that even after he was freed, he was still the White man's strict social inferior.

I feel I should note that I could switch some words around in this sentence ("suppression of male talent", "the woman's social inferior") and then draw a line between DIE and "quiet quitting".

Was worse. Jim Crow does not exist anymore - in fact, it is so officially banned that a lot of freedoms which were considered absolute before - such as freedom of association, freedom of conducting or refusing business, locality of power, etc. - had been abridged by the government to not let it ever come back. I am not going to argue whether it was worth it - that's not my point is. My point is - DEI is with us right now, right here, and impacts the lives of millions. Something bad that happened in the past may be really bad, but it was the past. We can not influence it, and it can not influence us anymore. But DEI is something that is happening in the present.

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