site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18667 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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.

So what would you agree to in terms of being an American? I really would like to know your true desire vs the minimal you would accept.

I literally said cultural and genetical assimilation. So no Haitians because their dumb and Viveks because he never assimilated.

Let me give an example of what I mean. Let's assume a version of a liberal/leftist with terms of "world where people don't go hungry", where their "true desire" is probably some form of "utopian communism" but they recognize the reality for what it is (that not all men are angel/that we don't have a post-scarcity world/etc.), and they settle. They don't settle all to the same position, but most settle with at least some form of what can be called "progressive tax system".

That's what I want to know about your stance. Your stance is "cultural and genetical assimilation as barrier to American-hood". I would like to know what is your "true desire", the one you wish the world would be to fully satiate your stance. But because of hard/impossible to solve constraints, you have to settle, and I want to know what is the least/minimal would you settle for.

So no Haitians because their dumb

Irony aside, you are pretty clearly "making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike."

"I want zero immigrants!" Fine, you can say that. "I think only WASPs should count as Americans." Fine, you can say that. "Haitians on average have lower education and IQs." It would be nice if you provided a source for the claim, but we'll probably let it pass.

"Haitians is dumb." Not fine. Especially because you have been warned about this before.

I notice a pattern. You say something bombastic and inflammatory. A mod tells you "Don't do this." You say "Fair (but I think I was right)." And then you wait a while and do it again.

I think you are testing what you can get away with and how often. Next time you will be banned.

I get your point. But the specific reference here has been litigated before here. Haitians were debated in depth during the election all over the internet and I assume here when the election occurred and the “their eating the cats” comments by Trump.

I don’t think it’s good to require every posts to be 15 paragraphs of citations. Maybe this is too old ago, but the specific arguments I would make here have been litigated before. What can you assume others know to allow for brevity.

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