site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   5977 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.

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;

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.

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.

I do not consider it a strawman to treat the statement to the effect of "if you have red hair, you must drink water" as having clearly implied "if you don't have red hair, then drinking water is not necessary", even if formal logic dictates otherwise. Pretending that this statement should in fact be strictly interpreted according to formal logic insults your interlocutor's intelligence.

Rhetoric gymnastics are not what I come here for.

Rhetoric gymnastics are not what I come here for.

You pretended that the poster was claiming that all black people are likely to misuse guns. Here's what you said:

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.

In reality, the poster made it clear he was talking about a subset:

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

Even if he hadn't made that clear, that would have been the charitable reading.

I don't know if "rhetoric gymnastics" were your main purpose in coming here, but that's what your posts are displaying.

More comments

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