site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   26310 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 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.

If it were any animal but humans, Aboriginal Australians would easily be categorized as a separate and long divergent species. Their exceptionally low intelligence, limited technological development, and prominent brow put them closer to our ancient fossilized cousins than any other “indigenous” (in the contemporary meaning of the term) people group.

That progressives use them as a status signal is not at all surprising - leftist women have driven social consciousness causes for all sorts of degenerates over time, from the clinically insane to the illegal immigrant child rapist to the Arab terrorist.

Modern taxonomy is generally based on recent common ancestry. Despite their profound behavioral and morphological peculiarities, Australian Aborigines split more recently from other Eurasians than Eurasians as a whole split from Sub-Saharan Africans. So if Australian Aborigines are to be classified as a separate species, then so would groups like Khoisan, Pygmies, and black Africans. Which means... your_terms_are_acceptable.jpg, I suppose. If race is a social construct, then so is species.

Among modern humans, Oceanians (including Australia Aborigines) have the highest degree of archaic admixture from Denisovans and Neanderthals, perhaps around 4-6% Denisovan admixture, on top of the 1-4% of Neanderthal admixture shared by Eurasians. West Africans appear to have about 2-19% of archaic admixture from ghost populations (populations of which fossils have yet to be discovered, as the climate of Sub-Saharan Africa tends to be unkind toward fossils).

leftist women have driven social consciousness causes for all sorts of degenerates over time, from the clinically insane to the illegal immigrant child rapist to the Arab terrorist.

It reminds me of that viral tweet that I can't find at the moment, which reads something like "Leftist thought: Actually, productive, law-abiding citizens are the oppressors and the unproductive and the criminal are the oppressed."

If it were any animal but humans, Aboriginal Australians would easily be categorized as a separate and long divergent species.

FWIW I think there is some degree of truth in this. I remember a few years back a photo circulated which purported to compare the skull of an Aboriginal Australian with that of a European. The difference is so shocking that the normal reaction is to think that the photo can't be real; that it must be the work of a racist troll who mislabeled the skull of some non-human hominid. But I looked into it and concluded it was probably accurate.

I think what happened was that when Homo Sapiens spread around the world, they encountered other species, such as Neanderthals, who were close enough genetically that some degree of interbreeding was possible. Thus Europeans and Asians have some percentage of Neanderthal genes. I would guess that Aboriginal Australians have a high percentage of genes from whatever hominid species was in Australia when Homo Sapiens showed up.

I would guess that Aboriginal Australians have a high percentage of genes from whatever hominid species was in Australia when Homo Sapiens showed up

Denisovans. IIRC the Denisovans were never actually in Australia, but Aboriginal Australians (along with Melanesians) picked up their genes in transit.

I would guess that Aboriginal Australians have a high percentage of genes from whatever hominid species was in Australia when Homo Sapiens showed up.

That’s the thing, I am pretty sure (the ancestors of) the Aboriginals were the first hominids of any kind to populate Australia, around 50,000 or 60,000 years ago. I suppose it is a testament to the tenacity and creativity of their forebears that they were apparently able to navigate the seas millennia before agriculture, the earliest cave art, or the domestication of the dog. Sadly they seem to be the civilizational equivalent of the kid who peaked in high school.

were apparently able to navigate the seas millennia before agriculture

As I understand it, they wouldn’t have had to navigate very far, as at the time both the Sunda Shelf and Sahul were above water; these seafarers would have been able to travel between a series of close-together islands in between the two supercontinents.

True, but island-hopping 90-100km is still no mean feat for literal Paleolithic man! I suppose it may have taken place over multiple generations, though I don’t know if the interstitial archipelago was large and fertile enough to support such long pit stops.

We still don't have a tremendously convincing theory for how primitive primates managed to cross the Atlantic: their appearance in the fossil record is long after Africa and South America separated.

If it were any animal but humans

Is that really true? Dogs are all the same species and yet differ far more in intellect, brain size, color, appearance, size, lifespan etc than humans do.

The actual science of separating species is (as most biologists will say) almost completely arbitrary.

The actual science of separating species is (as most biologists will say) almost completely arbitrary.

This is a false statement propagated by the same class of people who have difficulty answering the question "what is a woman?"

The word "species" has a clear and commonly understood definition. If two individuals are capable of interbreeding and the offspring produced are themselves reproductively viable then those two individuals are of the same species.

The word "species" has a clear and commonly understood definition. If two individuals are capable of interbreeding and the offspring produced are themselves reproductively viable then those two individuals are of the same species

I'm pretty sure there are exceptions to that, biology is pretty wonky.

what is a woman?

For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas, or (b.) has no gender identity and has a vulva.

I don't think this holds.

Much like the sexes are "male" and "female", there are 2 genders: "Man" and "Political". (By the same logic, there are also only 2 races.)

A woman is a Political that only claims that one singular identity. If it claims anything else, that Political is not a woman, so we don't erroneously classify other Alphabet People, or ex-women who are not Men, to be women.

By contrast, a Man is the gender expression of the people who don't think their gender merits any special privilege. This is generally because, from a biological or environmental standpoint, they aren't granted any- if they disagree with this, they're (by definition) a Political. This ensures we don't preclude females from being Men if they waive the privilege being female inherently grants them, but so many of them won't that it's not worth building separate facilities for them. Of course, being Men, that wouldn't bother them.

Categorizing gender identities this way solves most problems. For instance, we can continue with the 2-protected-space (changing rooms/bathrooms) system for Men and Political, where Politicals aren't allowed in the Men's room and vice versa. Again, because the gender expression of a Political is complaining (about the other users, the lack of accommodations, or whatever), it's very easy to tell who's who- if a Political goes into the Men's room and bitches about how unsafe it was (or whatever), that act reveals them to have broken the rules.

This also permits Politicals to express their gender identity fully in that space- which I agree is very important- and includes things like "complaining that males in dresses are in there leering at little girls". If a Political doesn't like that, they might choose to identify as a Man in that moment and use the room for Man, but as you'll recall they express their gender identity by not complaining about a lack of sex-specific accommodation so if they do that they're barred from [identifying as a Political and] complaining about it.

Note that, because the sexes are male and female, Men will accept that dichotomy is accurate and (if they happen to be straddling the gap a bit) will accept that the categories don't necessarily cover them (if they are mad about that, they aren't a Man, which solves the question of what gender the intersex are). So Men's clothing stores will carry male and female clothing, while clothing stores for Politicals are free to express their gender identity and have all the alternate opinions about the fact Men divide the world into two sexes that they want.

Sure, Politicals might still demand access to Man-only spaces, but that approach is not compatible with the idea that one's gender identity is a free choice. A more corrupt version of this (where it's only a free choice when it advantages Politicals) would necessitate 3 gender identities: one for Political women, one for Political non-women, and one for everyone else; or "women", "men", and "cissies" for short.

For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas, or (b.) has no gender identity and has a vulva.

Christ, you'd do your cause more good by staying silent than by posting this kind of gobbledygook. The "what is a woman" thing really did one-shot that movement.

That movement is still alive and well. Criticism of it can be voiced more openly now, but it still holds key institutions and its supporters are as entrenched as always. Hardly a one-shot.

That movement is still alive and well. Criticism of it can be voiced more openly now, but it still holds key institutions and its supporters are as entrenched as always.

I hope that that doesn't change in either direction. I do not agree with what the 'gender critical' say, but I also do not trust anyone with the power to make them shut up.

For most purposes

For ONE purpose: To alleviate the dissatisfaction a small number of people feel because they remain unable to change their sex.

For any purpose that is. if you aren't interacting with the trans individual's body, any of your beeswax.

(Also, some definitions of 'biological sex' can be changed.)

Sophistry and semantics can't turn a man into a woman.

I meant the 'hormones and secondary characteristics mediated by hormones' definition, and the 'what plumbing one currently has' definition.

Why have you stopped at that point in particular? Why not say that anyone who can hold a baby is a woman, and anyone who can throw a punch is a man?

More comments

the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas

And what identity would that be?

'Woman'.

For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas

So effeminate men are women, actually? And trans women, who aren't adopting the female gender role well enough aren't actually women?

So effeminate men are women, actually?

Not unless they identify as such.

And trans women, who aren't adopting the female gender role well enough aren't actually women?

They still identify as women, they're women.

(Perhaps you're thinking of gender presentation?)

Not unless they identify as such.

What would they be identifyng with?

(Perhaps you're thinking of gender presentation?)

If it has nothing to do with presentation, does that mean a burly lumberjack type, with no desire for hormones, surgeries, or cross dressing, and male behavior and mannerisms, is a woman, as long as he says so?

If she identifies as a woman, yes. (I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)

If he is lying in order to pivot progressives to maintaining the black-and-white 1-bit oversimplification he was taught back when he was knee-high to a grasshopper, no.

(I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)

Bless your heart.

If she identifies as a woman, yes.

Again, what would they be identifying with? What does this mean?

(I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)

If he is lying

How would you know? How do you know that the trans women that do put on a dress and whatnot aren't lying?

More comments

I fear you already know how he's going to answer.

If two individuals are capable of interbreeding and the offspring produced are themselves reproductively viable then those two individuals are of the same species

Yet we consider canis lupus, canis familiaris (sometimes), and canis latrans all different species.

(and forget about plants, those things are total degenerates)

Most taxonomists consider canis lupus lupus (Eurasian wolves), canis lupus dingo, canis lupus familiaris and the various subspecies of north American wolf to be the same species.

It isn't clear to me why canis latrans is a categorised as a different species given that fertile hybrids exist, although the wikipedia articles imply that c. latrans/c. lupus hybridisation is much less likely in the wild than hybridisation between c. lupus subspecies.

Combining the two topics, it appears that the debate about the origin of dingos has been stilted by concern about Aboriginal sensibilities - Occam's Razor points to the dingo being descended from feral domestic dogs brought over by the ancestors of the Aborigines, but lots of people want the story to be that dingos and humans came over separately and the Aborigines domesticated the dingo themselves in Australia.

There's also the red wolf, C. rufus/C. lupus rufus... which is still the subject of a debate as to whether or not they are a real species at all, or just a coyote/grey wolf hybrid. If the latter, than latrans and lupus hybridize plenty. And even if it is a real species, it commonly interbreeds with the coyote in the wild.

And also the rather silly C. lycaon (timber wolf), which is obviously just a grey wolf with a fan club.

Do you consider Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens to be the same species?

Yes; Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens.

That definition is far too simplistic. Ring species defy it in one way. Multiple recognized species that can actually all interbreed defy it in the other direction.

That definition is far too simplistic.

I am also told that that the gender binary of "male" and "female" is "lacks nuance" and is "too simplistic".

So you heard superficially similar arguments on two very different subjects? Neat.

OK, but how do you square your definition with ring species? Would two animals which can't interbreed be of one species if there existed an intermediate animal which they can both breed?

But this definition is actually way too simplistic in a way unrelated to modern gender ideology. Ring species, etc.

That is pretty clearly not the definition in practice. Your bitch-dog, if she's large enough not to get eaten afterwards, can have coyote puppies, which can themselves breed- and there are breeds of hunting dog with partial coyote ancestry. There's a breed of cat which is partially bobcat. Most bison have ancestry from domestic cattle.

Yet coyotes and dogs are considered different species.

Are they though?

While the American Kennel Club may disapprove, In my experience coydogs are treated as just another type of dog.

The genus Canis is such a taxonomic mess that almost everything about its classification is almost certainly wrong, though.

Politically correct taxonomy - it's not just for hominids.

(IIRC Jared Diamond wrote that if any other species did taxonomy, chimps and humans would be in the same genus).

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