site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   6066 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Evidence has been provided for decades. What do you want him to do, post FBI crime statistics for the millionth time?

Yeah, the claim that generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups is very obvious and very well supported.

In my view, the inflammatory claim is the opposite. People who claim that blacks behave more or less the same as every other group are the ones who should be proactively providing evidence. Because, in effect, they are claiming that people who observe and comment on black dysfunction (and its intractability) are either delusional or are liars.

Obviously a society where (1) guns are freely available to adults; and (2) there are a lot of black people, is a society where there will be a lot of shootings.

Yeah, the claim that generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups is very obvious and very well supported.

It most certainly is not. If you want to make that claim, you best bring receipts if you want people to take it seriously (or if you want the mods to not ding you for making inflammatory claims without evidence).

It most certainly is not.

Just so we are clear, are you highly skeptical of the following claims:

(1) In the United States, black people commit crime at rates which are significantly disproportionate;

(2) In the United States, black people become parents out-of-wedlock at rates which are significantly disproportionate;

(3) In the United States, black people save money and accumulate wealth at rates which are significantly under-proportionate;

None of those is the claim you originally made, so I'm not going to get dragged to a debate on any of those points. What you said was "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups". For that to be true, it would require most black people to behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner (because that is what "generally speaking, (group) behaves" means). To show that a group has higher rates of such behavior does not suffice for proving that most members of the group have that behavior.

None of those is the claim you originally made,

The claim I made was that "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups"

A reasonable way to evaluate this claim would be to look at crime; out-of-wedlock births; and financial behavior. But let me put the question to you: What sort of evidence would it take to convince you of the claim?

For that to be true, it would require most black people to behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner (because that is what "generally speaking, (group) behaves" means)

No, because I said "compared to members of other groups." So for example, if 5% of blacks behave in an antisocial and/or irresponsible manner, while only 2% of other groups do so, my claim would be correct. (And to be clear, I'm not going to get in a debate over what I meant. I know what I meant and that's what I meant. It was reasonably clear, but even if it wasn't, it's clear now.)

Here on this forum it is often stated outright or implied that those problems are strongly intractable, i.e. that there is no sociocultural intervention (cutting race-based leniency, welfare reforms, penitentiary reforms, less glorification of crime in pop media, etc.) that would, if not completely erase the gap between racial groups, at least make them decent enough neighbors. I do not find that immediately obvious or well supported.

I do not find that immediately obvious or well supported.

You've tried for 60 years, isn't it obvious now?

First, it wasn't me or even my country trying it, and second, even if it was, it appears clear that the trying was mostly in one direction. If you go the wrong way in a straight line for 60 years, it doesn't mean the destination does not exist.

What do you think they should do instead?

cutting race-based leniency, welfare reforms, penitentiary reforms, less glorification of crime in pop media, etc.

would be a start.

"we can't fix this at all"
vs
"everything we've tried to fix this has failed"
vs
"actually, we have a way to fix this, but solutions are being blocked by specific actors for specific reasons".

The difference between these three positions really matters.

All three are true. Everything we've tried has failed, and while we have ideas that may work, they are blocked for reasons.

Right now, the intelligentsia of both sides have decided the answer is gun control, but that is unlikely to work either for many reasons.

It depends on your understanding of the problem, I think.

If the problem is "blacks are statistically distinguishable from whites at a population level due to worse outcomes", probably.

On the other hand, the Mississippi Miracle and similar data points indicate that we do know how to secure significantly better outcomes for black people in a variety of ways, and my tribe at least is actively being prevented from fixing the problem.

Bukele in El Salvador is another example of the difference between the three. El Salvador's murder rate was absolutely intractable, right up until the moment it was promptly tracted. One of my strongest objections to the general thread of HBD discourse is the pretense that nothing can be done, when in fact it is highly probable that we could significantly reduce many of these gaps and then reassess. Maybe if we can't completely erase the gap, all the problems will persist... alternatively, maybe they won't be as bad, and maybe significant improvements in one area will lead to better outcomes being possible in other areas.

I’m a big HBD guy but that’s exactly why I’m also a big supporter of Bukele; there’s solutions at scale to the consequences of successive generations of very poor sexual selection effects if you have the balla to actually do something.

One aspect of American society re: blacks reinforces this. My understanding is that the difference between black and white on a whole range of indicators of social health was actually closing before the civil rights era. Things like marriage rates, owning businesses, children out of wedlock, educational achievement, etc.

Then we adopted what might have been one of the most destructive political regimes in America’s history in the late 50s / early 60s and basically just threw a nuclear bomb on the thing every year for the last seventy years.

I think it's fair to say at this point that black beta males have practically gone extinct in the US.

It is not that there is no sociocultural intervention that would reduce the gap. It is that there is no politically acceptable intervention, because all of them will look like they are disproportionately punitive to black people.

That I agree with.

Here on this forum it is often stated outright or implied that those problems are strongly intractable, i.e. that there is no sociocultural intervention (cutting race-based leniency, welfare reforms, penitentiary reforms, less glorification of crime in pop media, etc.) that would, if not completely erase the gap between racial groups, at least make them decent enough neighbors. I do not find that immediately obvious or well supported.

I disagree, but in any event, but the claim -- charitably interpreted -- is that if guns are freely available to adults in the population; and there are a lot of blacks in the population; one can reasonably expect a lot of shootings by black people. My position is that this is so clear and obvious that pro-active evidence is not necessary. I take it you disagree?

It is clear and obvious that if a criminal underclass exists, giving people guns will result in the criminal underclass (whatever their racial composition) committing a lot of shootings. I think pro-active evidence is necessary when you claim or imply (as the discussed post, interpreted with average charitability, is implying) that if black people weren't there, there wouldn't be a criminal underclass that can't be trusted with access to guns.

It is clear and obvious that if a criminal underclass exists, giving people guns will result in the criminal underclass (whatever their racial composition) committing a lot of shootings. I think pro-active evidence is necessary when you claim or imply (as the discussed post, interpreted with average charitability, is implying) that if black people weren't there, there wouldn't be a criminal underclass that can't be trusted with access to guns.

I strongly disagree with your "average charitability" interpretation. The claim made was that "Guns and blacks just don't mix well" This was in the context of a story of a black criminal - Travontis Miller. I don't see any claim that blacks are the only group which doesn't mix well with guns.

Anyway, it sounds like you agree with the charitable interpretation I laid out.

I disagree both with the degree of charitability you gave the claim and with "guns and blacks do not mix well". Guns and black criminals do not mix well (well, "guns and criminals" really). It is not obvious to me that the sets of "black people" and "black criminals" are the same circle. While the 13/52 FBI stats are quoted a lot, I have never seen any stats that clarify how large a percentage of the 13 commits the 52.

I disagree both with the degree of charitability you gave the claim and with "guns and blacks do not mix well". Guns and black criminals do not mix well (well, "guns and criminals" really). It is not obvious to me that the sets of "black people" and "black criminals" are the same circle. While the 13/52 FBI stats are quoted a lot, I have never seen any stats that clarify how large a percentage of the 13 commits the 52.

Here's a direct quote from the original poster:

If you have significant amount of blacks in your society then you must ban guns entirely and make possession a felony, or else aggressive and violently inclined black youth will eventually get their hands on guns through legal means or the black (pun intended?) market

In other words, it's clear that the people (allegedly according to the poster) misusing guns are a subset of the black population ("aggressive and violently inclined black youth")

Frankly, you've gone beyond uncharitable interpretations and are entering strawman territory.

More comments

It is not actually obvious at all to the average intelligent person who might make a good Motte commenter but comes from a sheltered liberal or moderate-conservative background. The vast majority even of intelligent, generally well-informed people have never looked at the relevant statistics, and many of them have also been exposed enough to the "the racist law enforcement system is the reason for such statistics" theory that the bare statistics wouldn't even be enough by themselves.

It is not actually obvious at all to the average intelligent person who might make a good Motte commenter but comes from a sheltered liberal or moderate-conservative background. The vast majority even of intelligent, generally well-informed people have never looked at the relevant statistics, and many of them have also been exposed enough to the "the racist law enforcement system is the reason for such statistics" theory that the bare statistics wouldn't even be enough by themselves.

For such a person, what evidence could be provided to substantiate the claim that "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups"

I imagine the same evidence that convinced you would be a good place to start.

I imagine the same evidence that convinced you would be a good place to start.

Well, that would be (1) general, informal observations; and (2) publicly available statistics.

Apparently, this hypothetical intelligent person does not accept publicly available statistics. And it doesn't seem likely that an anonymous interpret poster's summary of his general informal observations will carry much weight.

Yes. We had a 20 year campaign to deny the truth. So a lot of people have never been exposed to it. And it’s honestly clustered in upper middle class people since they often live in a highly filtered environments and wouldn’t see results on the ground. Even athletes are extremely filtered for intelligence. Antonio Brown is the exception that proves the rule. You need to be highly disciplined and usually more intelligent to make it to the nfl

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