site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   28528 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.

Those of Black ethnicity are 13 times more likely to be fatally stabbed than their White peers, while children living in the most deprived areas of the country are 7 times more likely to die of their wounds than those living in the most affluent areas.

As is tradition, the passive voice leaves unanswered who is stabbing “those of Black ethnicity” and “children living in the most deprived areas of the country.”

White cisheteropatriarchy is murdering them via other Black Bodies.

The above sentence is unironically the critical theory position on this matter; it is not a weak man.

This seems like a relatively extraordinary claim, so you should at least present some ordinary evidence like an instance of this claim being made by a believer in some relatively authoritative critical theory venue.

I don't think that this is an extraordinary claim. I will say that most critical theory don't consider people to be puppets, so they won't say "we are only automatons" and thus the individual murderer bears some blame. At the same time, the consensus belief in critical theory is that the negative outcomes that African Americans have is as a result of discrimination/injustice from the system. It follows that this individual outcome, the murder rate which is committed mostly by other African Americans, is downstream of discrimination. Hence, my above quote.

It may be a bit of a spicy framing, and there are tweaks around the edges a professor would make, but I still think my above framing is pretty accurate to the critical theory framing of black-on-black crime.

I don't have citations because I am not a link collector, but while @burkeboi's framing is a little uncharitable, it's not really far off. When it's pointed out that most black victims of violence are victims of other black people, the leftist response is that this happens within a system of institutionalized racial oppression that created the conditions in which black people are killing each other- so yes, it's white people's fault, and critical theorists frame that as some variation of "white cisheteropatriarchy."

Similarly, when the "Stop Asian Hate Campaign" revealed that most assaults on Asians were being committed by blacks, I definitely remember some critical theorists literally saying that this was white supremacy in action. Essentially the same argument as above, that if anyone is doing violence inside a white cisheteropatriarchy system, it's the fault of the white cisheteropatriarchy system, even if none of the participants are white.

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