site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12hr ago (text post)   2084 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.

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.

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

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