site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8542 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The fact that their base behaviours seem to be to trust the brown guy levelling accusations of racism over the white guy who's dying on the ground is basically what people are upset about.

The culture war aspects are:

  • Digwa immediately knew that the best way to get the police on his side was to accuse his victim of saying something racist.
  • Digwa was permitted to carry a huge weapon openly in public, despite having been banned from his temple for stealing knives.
  • Digwa was in the country in the first place.
  • Digwa's family openly conspired to pervert justice, and clearly considered Nowak to be a foreign devil not a human being deserving of care and treatment or even just calling an ambulance.
  • The Prime Minister and other major officials are clearly incapable of summoning up even a fraction of the outrage they assure us they felt over Floyd.
  • This is the third atrocity where fears of racism have resulted in white people suffering or dying whilst ignored by authority figures, and something like the tenth where white people have been victimised at the hand of imported ethnics.
  • Just like always, the response of the government has been to deny, obfuscate and delay.

And that's just for starters.

over the white guy who's dying on the ground is basically what people are upset about.

To be clear here, they didn't know he was dying. The wound was not visible from their perspective.

I don't know if they ever said it anywhere but most likely they just assumed that he was pretty much every other case of a guy freaking out, an addict having an issue.

To be clear here, they didn't know he was dying. The wound was not visible from their perspective.

What constitutes "knowledge" here? The victim clearly articulated several times that he had, in fact, been stabbed and could not breathe. If you invoke enough skepticism, nobody can truly "know" anything.

At the minimum, they knew Nowak was lying on the ground, immobile and incapacitated, while the man who claimed to have been attacked by him was standing, talkative, lucid and displaying no signs of injury whatsoever (absurdly pointing to a fictitious bruise on his eyelid to bolster his claim to have acted in self-defence). I don't think you need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that a) however the altercation might have transpired, Nowak did not pose an active threat to anyone at the time the police arrived on the scene (so cuffing him was unnecessary); and b) Digwa and his family weren't being entirely truthful in their versions of events.

They should have known he was dying. They should certainly have managed to notice his injuries while they were handcuffing him for doing a racism. And they need to be extensively and explicitly re-trained that:

  • if somebody is on the ground, you look to them and you check them for injuries first, as you say
  • you disregard any accusations of racism from an ethnic minority until there is time to do a proper investigation; you do not allow it to prejudice you when you approach a scene, you do not allow yourself to be influenced by thoughts of racial activists on Twitter, and you do recognise it as a tactic very commonly deployed by ethnic minorities to avoid guilt and gain sympathy
  • you know and remain aware of the fact that an ethnic minority is far more likely to murder or assault a white man than the opposite, and you act accordingly

And that's just lessons for individual policemen to learn. The police force and the government is a whole other story.

The problem for police is that they constantly have to deal with hardcore defectbots, so when they end up with a cooperate bot they habitually hit defect because 9/10 it's the sensible move.

"I know my rights" "You can't touch me that's assault" "I've got mental health" "Fucking racist police" "Stop touching me up you pervert" "She stabbed me" "I didn't do nothing" "He's the one who started it" "I can't breathe" "I get claustrophobia" "You should catch the real criminals" "I need my medicine" "These handcuffs are too tight" "You have to let me go" "You like to pick on little people don't you" "Those aren't mine" "Why aren't you helping me" "I've never seen that before" "He's a liar" "I need a doctor" "I haven't touched a drop" "They're getting away" "I got lost and I thought this was my house" "It's only a little bit" "He was filming me" "I'm allergic" "You're making my baby cry" "I'm dying" "Why should I" "Don't tase me bro" "I didn't see him" "It's cos I'm black" "I want him to leave me alone" "According to the magna carta" "You're giving me anxiety" "She told me she was over 18" "I'm not resisting" "Watch out I'm HIV" "You've got the wrong person" "I paid full price for that" "You're hurting me" "Do you know who I am" "I swear to god I'm telling you the truth" "This is fascism" "You're making a mistake" "I thought it was legal" "It was an accident" "I bet you can't even count to a thousand with your eyes closed"

Which ones are genuine? Did you read all of them and give each one careful individual consideration, or did you tune out as they blurred into ambient whining?

I assume that police have enough training and common sense to provide first aid or call for an ambulance for anyone who appears to be badly injured. I also assume they have enough negative experiences to be sceptical of a suspect who doesn't appear to be badly injured claiming they are. Since they treated Nowak with scepticism instead of medical attention I assume that his injuries appeared to be minor and in the context more akin to a drinker who had just lost a fistfight.

If you train police to check suspects for unseen injuries all you're going to find is the majority of suspects don't have any unseen injuries, but they do have a propensity to attack or try to escape while you're distracted because they've learnt that saying they're injured creates that opportunity. Of course if you can see they're injured you can make your own assessment and don't need to factor in their honesty.

They should have known he was dying. They should certainly have managed to notice his injuries while they were handcuffing him for doing a racism.

I agree! Cops can suck and be poorly trained and we should ensure that they take each situation seriously instead of defaulting to "'calm person I spoke to first is being truthful and unresponsive person is just on drugs".

A skinny 18 year-old with combed hair wearing a white shirt and tie is so unlikely to be a drug addict that you have to already be profiling like a progressive to consider it. Kid is calling out that he can't breathe and that he's been stabbed while one of the officers tells him that he has not been.

The likeliest explanation is that they believed the stabber because progressive values encourage righteous fury at any accusations of racism. The next likeliest explanation is that they profiled the kid on some other class basis, which is one of those bizarre Britishisms that does come up again and again whenever Britain's new minorities attack lower-class whites. Both of those possibilities are far likelier than a simple misunderstanding.

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