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.

"No sir, Please sir, I'm one of da good ones see!"

That sounds better than whatever you are trying to do here. Is this post an attempt to convince the racists that they should include you and people like you in the future? My understanding of present-day white racists is that the violence and attitude are exactly what they would rather do without.

Note that in some ways the racists of slavery or Jim Crow days were perhaps less racist than the current racists. I don't know of any anti-black racist who would let a Mammy into their house to nurse their children. There are certainly white racists in nursing homes being taken care of by black workers, but I can't imagine that this was their own device.

While I'm sympathetic to the straightforward expectation from a black US citizen to get some considerations from other Americans, I do not understand why some people think they deserve to live in the vicinity of white people. I would never move to China and demand the Chinese people start supporting me and share the products of their hard work.

Regarding actual slavery, I would wager a guess that your best bet is still team White Power. Actual slavery is still going on in Africa and the Middle-East, as is traditional in these areas when Europeans people are not controlling them. It seems to me that East Asians are also less accepting of Black people than Europeans. What I'm saying is that if you in the future were at risk of being captured by some kind of enemy forces, you probably should be hoping that they are Europeans rather than any other race.

Just like it would seem that a Black highschool celebration would be more likely to get shot at than the equivalent White highschool celebration, in the US.

Therefore actually being friendly with White people may in some way be the best option for you. Even if that may hurt your ego.

Note that in some ways the racists of slavery or Jim Crow days were perhaps less racist than the current racists.

Probably not Jim Crow, but slavery in the United States had a sincere paternalistic dimension, and that social dynamic no longer exists. Slave Owners actually did have a social responsibility for their slaves. Whites today do not have a similar social burden because blacks have equal rights. Social Justice rhetoric tries to infuse the paternalistic social burden onto whites even in the state of equal rights, through racial guilt and scapegoating whites as the cause of persistent dysfunction in the black community, but that's what modern racists reject.

It's not because they are more hateful per se, it's a totally different social dynamic and Whites no longer have a duty to uphold in that dynamic.

Therefore actually being friendly with White people may in some way be the best option for you. Even if that may hurt your ego.

As I explained earlier, the humiliation is the grievance. Blacks don't have to be enslaved to be treated as a slave race, which is the necessary conclusion of HBD-inspired right-wing thought.

Blacks don't have to be enslaved to be treated as a slave race

Yeah, they pretty much do. Anyway, that's not a conclusion of "HBD-inspired right-wing thought". When slavery was still a thing there were those who thought blacks were natural slaves, but I believe the HBD types believe that blacks actually make terrible slaves.

In fairness, I admit that the exact phrasing of "treated as a slave race" is too extreme. Still, any real measures to address black dysfunction would necessarily entail the solidification of disproportionate outcomes between whites and blacks, which would inevitably fuel the resentment towards whites that has burned in the heart of the black man since 1619.

but I believe the HBD types believe that blacks actually make terrible slaves.

Aww, you ruined the surprise - I was building up to that. But yes, the widespread acceptance of HBD among whites is an existential threat to blacks, and in varying degrees to all non-whites.

In fairness, I admit that the exact phrasing of "treated as a slave race" is too extreme. Still, any real measures to address black dysfunction would necessarily entail the solidification of disproportionate outcomes between whites and blacks, which would inevitably fuel the resentment towards whites that has burned in the heart of the black man since 1619.

Blacks already resent whites. If blacks insist on equality of result as a condition for ending their resentment, they (and white people) are just going to have to deal with the resentment.

Aww, you ruined the surprise - I was building up to that. But yes, the widespread acceptance of HBD among whites is an existential threat to blacks, and in varying degrees to all non-whites.

No, it isn't. Widespread acceptance of HBD among whites is unlikely to lead to genocide of blacks, and certainly not of East Asians.

Blacks already resent whites. If blacks insist on equality of result as a condition for ending their resentment, they (and white people) are just going to have to deal with the resentment.

They have not, and will not, simply "just deal with the resentment", as evidenced by all of American race relations since Reconstruction.

Widespread acceptance of HBD among whites is unlikely to lead to genocide of blacks, and certainly not of East Asians.

You're right writ. East Asians, hence my qualifier "in varying degrees". But towards other non-whites, and especially towards blacks, the argument put forth by Teddy Roosevelt (and in my linked comment above) is simply correct, and by extension blacks are correct in doing everything in their power to hold back the day when acceptance of HBD reaches critical mass among whites.

"Whether the whites won the land by treaty, by armed conquest, or, as was actually the case, by a mixture of both, mattered comparatively little so long as the land was won. It was all-important that it should be won, for the benefit of civilization and in the interests of mankind. It is indeed a warped, perverse, and silly morality which would forbid a course of conquest that has turned whole continents into the seats of mighty and flourishing civilized nations. [...] it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

- Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning Of The West

They have not, and will not, simply "just deal with the resentment", as evidenced by all of American race relations since Reconstruction.

They're not going to have a choice. Because the alternative simply doesn't work.

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