site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9188 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That might be good hopes, but they should also have checked if it's even true. A quick look through the "transcrime" site shows they also just count men who crossdress.

From the study:

[Trans Crime UK] lists 37 cases since 2000, but the scope is broad. Firstly, it includes perpetrators who cross-dressed but did not otherwise exhibit a transgender identity. Roderick Deakin-White, for instance, beat his girlfriend to death following conflict over his wearing of women’s clothes, especially during sex. This ‘was something in which he found great solace and was soothing’, according to the clinical psychologist at his trial (BBC News 2019). Deakin-White falls under the classic ‘Transgender Umbrella’ circulated by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, which specifically includes transvestites, defined as ‘cross-dressing for emotional comfort’, as well as transvestic fetishists who wore clothes ‘for erotic purposes’ (Green 1994:68). Cross-dressers were similarly classified as transgender by the popular Gender Book on Tumblr (Hill and Mays 2013), by a leading British sociologist of gender (Hines 2007), and by Britain’s dominant LGBT advocacy organization (Stonewall 2020b). The government’s definition of transphobic hate crime also encompasses crossdressers (Home Office 2024). Remembering Our Dead’s list of victims in other countries does include some cross-dressers. Nevertheless, cross-dressers would not normally be identifiable among victims of homicide—this aspect of their life would not be reported in news of their death—and so they could not be counted as transgender victims. Therefore we omit crossdressers....

Furthermore, we applied uniform criteria to victims and perpetrators, hence the exclusion of cross-dressers from the list of perpetrators.

Consider reading the study before criticising it.

Consider reading the study before criticising it.

I did, it doesn't matter the way you try to claim. Motivations and bias here in showing non trans people as trans reveals just how far reaching this site is. Assuming equal incentive = equal bias is flawed. Given that they couldn't find any case in the trans site that wasn't also on the BBC besides the first two they had, it shows the effects of bias of the trans site isn't actually that strong whereas the transcrime site is self evidently strong given that they had to specifically exclude tons of non trans cases.

If you pull from two datasets and one is good to go from the start, and the other has to have half the data taken out, which dataset do you think had more bias put into it?

And as I explained to you in the other comment

"Pretty much only BBC reporting" vs "BBC + tons of other different news sources" is absurd. Most murders are not reported in national news.

Nevertheless, cross-dressers would not normally be identifiable among victims of homicide—this aspect of their life would not be reported in news of their death—and so they could not be counted as transgender victims. Therefore we omit crossdressers....

Nor does this address the issue that many trans victims would also not be reported as such in the same way that overdoses and suicides are not accurately reported. Anything with a social stigma attached has far less chance of their family and friends reaching out to the national news going "our loved one with social stigma died, please blast it to the world".

If you pull from two datasets and one is good to go from the start, and the other has to have half the data taken out, which dataset do you think had more bias put into it?

I genuinely don't think this matters provided you've gone to the trouble to properly vet and cleanse the data, which the authors explicitly have.

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