site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18228 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.

You say all that as if "not being disenfranchised, particularly within the country they're very much not first-generation immigrants in" is an interest that's so uncommon and morally unreasonable for a group to hold that it can only be viewed with amused dispassion. "Look how politically effective their strategy is, asserting that they won't be second class!".

Yeah, it's insanely politically effective.

That's why they have all these special privileges, why they have these holy words that only blacks can use. If a white says the word, many consider it a justification for violence. A company hires too many whites, that apparently means blacks can sue them or get cushy jobs there to restore balance.

They shriek about not being slaves or having to sit at the back of the bus 70 years ago. Now, feeling emboldened, we see all these videos of blacks making massive scenes on public transport, playing the knockout game, pushing people onto the rails in subway stations, threatening and leering and occasionally murdering white people like Iryna.

Some black drug dealer gets choked under arrest or dies of fent and it's a global event of massive significance, all this evil racism. A black ties up and beats a 3 year old white girl to death and nobody could care less, this is apparently trivial news of no racial significance.

https://www.wesh.com/article/man-arrested-for-death-3-year-old-child-marion-county/70432617

They enjoy being treated like noblemen in some feudal backwater and shriek about being oppressed or how they might be treated as second-class in the future, it's a comical inversion of reality. Meanwhile the people who are being treated as second-class, who are being spat at and harassed in the present are often defending them or oh so careful to say they're not racist or prejudiced.

Is it morally unreasonable for a group to assert that they will not be second class citizens?

It's unreasonable to do so while victimizing other groups at hugely disproportionate rates and getting preferential treatment across society.

In each of my posts I bring up examples in the present of how whites are being treated badly in favour of blacks. What argument do you think I'm making with those points?

Is a particular black man responsible for a proportion of other black men victimizing someone or having gotten preferential treatment, that he should not argue for the bottom line of not being made into a second class citizen because of what the others did?

I think you're making the argument that currently, the powers that be are overly protective of the bad blacks in the way that they are not of bad whites. I agree with that assessment.

that it can only be viewed with amused dispassion.

Are there any left-wing arguments that right-wingers are allowed to have emotional spergouts about, and you will personally defend them if they do?

I do not care to project my position on every issue ever ahead of time to prove to you I'm not a committed partisan or something. You can check my post history if you're really curious and go with that.

I'm not asking you to prove your past track record, I'm asking if you can think of a similar argument from the other side that you would treat the same way.

If there was a similar argument on the "other side" that convinced me, it would be an argument on my side. I reject your attempts to shoehorn me as a leftwinger, whose arguments must be scrutinized for sincerity if they happen to oppose rightwinger arguments.

If you think there's no discussion with me because I'm partisan then there is no discussion to be had. If you have specific evidence of my partisanship then you can list that.

I'm not shoehorning you with anybody. I'm just bemused that these "group X should be able to react emotionally to your arguments" demands are seemingly only made of me, and literally never on my behalf. I couldn't care less which group you belong to, or if you don't belong to any group at all, I care about the dynamics.

There appears to be plenty of emotional reactions to all sorts of arguments here.

Any that come close to "Demonic pigskin talking about bringing back slavery. Fuck the 'norms' you deserve to killed fuck you cracker bitch" on their level of emotion? Any that you would personally defend like you're doing this one?

I don't recall defending "Demonic pigskin". I defended "I will not be a slave".

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