site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   22923 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

'I can't breath' - The murder of Henry Nowak

Recently a story that was bouncing around right-wing circles on Twitter has broken through to the front pages. Henry Nowak, an eighteen year old white (Polish) man was murdered in the UK by Vikrum Digwa, a Sikh, with his ceremonial blade (a Shastar). When police arrived, Henry was on the floor telling police that he had been stabbed (four times) and that he couldn't breathe (nine times). However, the police ignored Henry's pleas and instead believed the story concocted by Vikrum and his brother, that Henry was a drunk racist who had attacked an innocent brown man.

In a chilling exchange, a policeman responds to Henry's plea that he has been stabbed with 'Don't think you have mate', before dragging him across the gravel and handcuffing him. A policewoman agrees with Vikrum's brother that he hasn't been stabbed, saying 'I know, but we should probably check'. By the time they realise the truth and try to administer first aid, it is too late. Henry died knowing that the people who should have come to save him, instead believed his murderer.

Some other details:

  1. Vikrum's mother hid the murder weapon, while his father propped up Henry to make it seem like he was fine. His brother called the police with the false accusation of racial assault and continued to insist on it while Henry was dying on the ground.
  2. Vikrum was know to police as being obsessed with weapons, having been arrested (but not charged) for stealing knives from the local Sikh temple
  3. The family had an arsenal of weapons in their home, which Vikrum's father and brother are now being charged for possession of
  4. The person who called the police reported Henry's cry that he'd been stabbed, which police didn't take into account when assessing the scene

Comparisons are rightly being drawn to the killing of George Floyd. Nigel Farage has demanded 'white hot rage' and has in turn been accused by MPs of inciting violence (there have been riots outside the local police station). The Police Minister has denied that Britain has two-tier policing, while also condemning police guidance that seems to mandate it.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the local police force, and one of the arresting officers has already resigned. We'll see if anything comes of these investigations, although the most likely outcome in my opinion will be just the usual 'lessons will be learned'. Police currently working for the constabulary speak of a climate where an accusation of racism can ruin careers, and where staff are trained to always take the side of racial minority complainants, so it'll be interesting to see if the IOPC investigation finds this to be the case.

The 'two tier justice' claim seems to be cutting through with the public, and clearly rattles the government. One can hope that Henry's death leads to less antiracism training, affirmative action and race action plans, but we'll see.

The reality is that minorities do suffer disproportionate policing attention, but in the opposite direction they claim. In the UK Muslim and black criminal yoof commit crimes far in excess of their baseline arrest and charge rate and their population level overrepresentation is explained simply by their greater criminal propensity. The only saving grace is travelers also being criminal scum but they somehow managed to get the magic shield of racial consideration so they just raid and trash communities without consequence or reporting.

You can't walk back charities already extended with rolling back all considerations. Muslims blacks indians jews arabs all will band together to collectively support this population level exploitation of native white charities and the whites have progressives who will champion these defectors since the real enemy is the pale stale male jenricks and farages of the UK.

There is no culture war. A war means it is still being fought. The UK lost already and the rearguard is being squeezed and told to let themselves be murdered by minorities to not make minorities look bad. That minorities keep insisting on being criminal assholes is just the fault of white society for being so racist that the minorities STILL feel aggrieved. Perhaps sacrificing another dozen little girls to black knives and then making an award winning tv special about how white racists are the real problem will earn some leeway for whites to continue existing till another minority decides to stab or rape for fun.

There is no culture war. A war means it is still being fought. The UK lost already and the rearguard is being squeezed and told to let themselves be murdered by minorities to not make minorities look bad.

Given that the leader of the party that is currently sitting top of the polls has come out with his one of his strongest statements regarding race relations since his moderate pivot, at least that I can remember, and has been widely hounded by the political-media class (including in Parliament itself), I'd say the war is far from over. The police situation is exacerbated by the fact that there has been huge churn in the last few years, and so many (most?) are young, incompetent, and/or ideologically captured. Things can change just as easily as they changed in the first place.

Farage has been saying things for a long time. So far he has only proven to be a populist voice with the very same 'moderate' anti-white policies of Labour and the Tories. Ready to play the respectability politics and then lose when push comes to shove and his party is faced with the same problems that have driven the majority of the west towards the now typical anti-white solutions.

Without a worldview that is a hardline fact based contradiction to the blank slate alternative and without the moral backbone to stand by a specific people, there will be no positive change. Reform has explicitly rejected all avenues that can logically lead to success. They can win elections, but what will they resort to when the left political machine re-asserts their claim on the moral mandate that Reform refuses to contest? When the sheer weight of demographic change starts impacting every aspect of political life? Will Reform really get a steady enough supply of ethnically motivated rape gangs, murders and other crime to challenge the moral narrative that every western media outlet is churning out to their captive audience 24/7?

Reform is not fighting a war. They're an informal surrender. Be prim and proper, don't rock the boat, keep a stiff upper lip and don't look at the endless horde of foreigners waiting on the horizon that are all motivated by an ethnic ideology that demonizes native Brits.

Ready to play the respectability politics and then lose when push comes to shove

There's a hard limit on appetite for explicitly ethnonationalist politics in Britain, from the native side at least. This is just not a world view that anyone subscribes to. Even the most hardcore 10% of the population have a conception of nationalism that includes "the good ones" nowadays. How likely do you think they'd be to win a general election by going full blood and soil?

Rupert Lowe's twitter account might hint at a full throated vision of what could be, and yet that's also a mirage, he doesn't believe half the stuff that gets posted, the full consequences of "deport everybody" aren't discussed or confined, and instead net out to deporting foreign/dual national criminals, recent Boriswavers, and destitute non-citizens. This is effectively the same as the Reform 2024 manifesto commitments.

Be prim and proper, don't rock the boat, keep a stiff upper lip

This is clearly shifting, Farage has long been a Fabian about these things, purging UKIP of it's nonsensical elements whilst the British public wouldn't stand for it, and yet look where we are. He's a wave surfer perhaps if you're being discharitable, but he clearly isn't a pure grifter. The man was in the trenches speaking to grumbling boomers in village halls in the dark blairite years.

And regarding prim and proper: they decided to stand a candidate in one of the most important by elections in years with an explicitly shit posting, "scaffolder humour" past, haven't backed down from the choice, and are now engaged in an all against all war against the BBC and uni party over language policing regarding the Nowak case.

Incessant doomerism isn't necessary. Obviously he's not perfect, but considering where the British political scene was in 2021 this is better than I could have hoped.

I don't disagree. My point was that the state of affairs Farage represents is what got us to this point in the first place. And as your post implicitly reiterates, Farage doesn't pose any threat to that state of affairs. Instead he is riding the wave of suffering and strife it creates, without any logical recourse to end it.

If the British public is not ready to assert their claim as the rightful and sole owners of their lands, then that's a problem that needs to be realized and solved. But as I said, Farage does not represent any move towards that direction. The realization I'm trying to convey is that the best case scenario for a Farage government would be a more skillfully managed decline of the British nations. It's better in the short term, but the long term result is the same. The end of the British people.

This is an established paradigm in modern right wing politics. Historically there are two camps that believe in some form of solution to this existential crisis of the west. The Secretly Based Camp and the Accelerationist Camp. The SBC believes that there are secretly based politicians that are playing electoral politics, hiding their power level just enough to get elected so they can save the country. The Accelerationist camp believes that the accelerated deterioration of the native populations QoL is a mechanism that can wake them up to act in a more radical way in their own self interest.

To summarize, Farage represents the worst option. He's neither secretly based nor trying to upset the status quo. Instead he is cashing out on all the pent up pressure that the negative effects of the status quo create without representing any chance to correct the course.

Now, maybe Farage represents something different and new that exists outside this paradigm. One can only hope. But I don't see why one would think that considering we now have an established history of SBC candidates failing to live up to the hopes that were tied to them. Farage seems to fit neatly into the established paradigm as what's commonly referred to as a Release Valve. I don't think that's an unfair description until proven otherwise.

I agree in the sense that no politician on the right (or centre-left for that matter) has fully grokked the Moldbuggian "what is to be done" stuff here. I'm not entirely sure who the SBC predecessors are. Boris? The European context is dominated by based candidates getting elected into minor satrapies sublimated to the EU, with no room to manoeuvre at all. It doesn't seem obvious to me why a British situation couldn't work out differently in principle.

Reform are expressly standing on manifesto commitments to repeal vast swathes of Blairite era legislation, so in theory should be able to push it through if they got a majority. Would they also have the guts to overthrow the civil service, reform Councils etc. etc. No, almost certainly not. But anything close to the level of radicalism that we saw between say 1997-2001 or 1945-1951 would be a good starting point.

If Farage does prove to be a completely useless release valve that achieves nothing of any sort (a la Meloni perhaps?) then the electorate will bring someone else in (or begin looking at other avenues).

Sometimes I do have the twinge of fear at the scale of what is facing us. But what else is to be done? We need someone to win the next election, and no one is going to be coming at it from a standing start - Reform are about as fast as one can go in these things (within the British parliamentary tradition). I imagine one failure-mode may be the emergence of Northern Irish style politics (and non-politics) in the urban rings. In that situation perhaps a radical solution will self emerge. Argentina is another oft floated end point - slow terminal decline - but Argentina doesn't have the ethnic element which makes conflict semi unavoidable.

Regardless, I'm confident the problem is much smaller than that of the US or even France, because of both the scale and our political system.

Agreed. Farage is Ambrose Burnsides running a grift, promising the great battle but chickening out at committing. The European Right is the Star Citizen of politics, a machine to extract gibs but never complete the project because it both stops the gravy train and the project can't be done anyways. I do not see any real appetite for Europeans to retake their lands from the migrants invaders that gleefully rape murder and grift their way through the cowed populations because the actual real solution is Idi Amins expulsion of the gujuratis and this time the criminal muslims have shown themselves eager to blow up europeans while also weaponizing the lefts moral axioms. Until someone actually dares name the beast and propose a real solution I see the entire right wing as a pretend force grifting an increasingly cucked population.

The sell still is that some criminal migrants are worth it for curry and caretakers, an insane proposition but one the establishment on all sides is committed to. Get european robotics up to speed to make sure you don't need any fucking meatbags and then you'll see the calculus change.

staff are trained to always take the side of racial minority complainants

The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence.

Paper bag testing people and blindly siding with white suspects is dumb. This, doing the opposite, is just as dumb.

He was stabbed and bleeding out on the ground... His murderer was standing over him with a dagger.

blindly siding with white suspects is dumb

How about siding with the person bleeding out? How about giving medical attention to the person bleeding out?

How can you honestly hold your opinion?

My opinion is a good one and I easily hold it. I also want cops to give medical attention to stab victims. I never said otherwise.

Or, as the Rightful Caliph put it,

A car with a broken engine cannot drive backward at 200 mph, even if the engine is really really broken.

"Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence", December 2007

Yes, this was a bad call from the police in a case where the murderer and his family deliberately set it up to mislead the police and now we're blaming minorities because some individual police officers got misled. Regardless we know that he had been fatally stabbed by the time the police arrived and he was a goner regardless even if the police had done the correct thing.

This is an example of a criminal killing off an ordinary member of society without any real justification and then lying about it in the most convenient way possible (which criminals are wont to do). The murderer has been punished as he should have been. It's a very shitty situation and terrible for the family but it's not some big "race war now" as far right grifters have been trying to make it out to be online.

At most this is a "routine" case of murder with police mishandling that should be investigated (btw, we can't even be sure whether there was mishandling at this stage, the police made a bad judgment call but there's no rule that works for 100% of situations, we have to wait for the official report)

  • -13

I mean how common do these incidents need to be before anyone is allowed to point to the pattern? How blatant do the cops need to be before anybody is allowed to say “this isn’t just incompetent?” A man was arrested for being stabbed by a brown Sikh guy while the cops calmly chatted and searched his phone and then his father’s phone for “racism”. A man who, had he received prompt treatment, might well have survived.

Regardless we know that he had been fatally stabbed by the time the police arrived and he was a goner regardless even if the police had done the correct thing.

He was only two minutes by ambulance to the nearest hospital. I saw a doctor argue on twitter that his primary source of bleeding out was the subclavian vein, which often clots itself, and that given that he was able to forcefully talk when the police arrived (indicating a certain level of aliveness and blood pressure), but died almost immediately after being handcuffed, that the physical manipulation of the handcuffing itself might have dislodged the clotting that was keeping the bleeding under control and absolutely contributed to his death. That doctor made her statements based on the court reports, not an actual review of the autopsy which has not been released.

I don't think they should charge these cops with murder but I think they should be named and fired for appalling judgment.

Beside the polish doctor pediatrician saying Nowak may have survived his wounds if treated differently, the coroner has now called for an inquest..

Edit: inquiry to begin in front of a jury on Sept 20, 2027. Why is this delayed for so long in the face of massive public interest? Can't wait until authorities start with their 'wait until the inquiry has been completed' suppression tactics.

From a purely practical standpoint, while not ideal, that rubric would get much better results than the current one.

Those are the only two options now. That's the society we made. “The question is, which is to be master—that’s all.”

Comparisons are rightly being drawn to the killing of George Floyd

I don't think we can say these comparisons are right. In the George Floyd killing, it was the police who were responsible. In this killing, it was a civilian. Now did the police get the situation utterly wrong? Absolutely. But this is quite different from the police actually killing Nowak.

They took a person bleeding out and forced him into cuffs (not good for bleeding) and denied him medical treatment.

They mocked him as he breathed out his last words.

That's negligent manslaughter, at best.

Why try to down play it?

Does anyone really not know that Floyd was more than twice the blood level of fentanyl that can be saved with Narcan? He was absolutely in an irreversible overdose. And he DID the crime he was being accused of. Several in fact.

Not really, this is blatant incompetence and racism resulting in a death. I don't see the difference.

He was a goner regardless even if the police had done everything right, his stab wound from before the police arrived was already lethal.

He was alive when the police got there.

EMTs would be able to declare him too far or dead (even with their medical training) and would have a duty to act.

Why do you think you know what would have happened?

Why try so hard to downplay this?

Despite fleeing Pakistan to go work in finance and conspicuously not contribute his big brain to Pakistan, Burdensomecount is intensely parochial regarding his Pakistani countrymen and their Indian siblings

There is something about the situation that is horrifying.

Imagine two outcomes:

Outcome 1: The police arrive, notice that Nowak is not doing well, make him comfortable while they call an ambulance. He spends his final moments watching the second policeman have stern words with his murderer while the policewoman holds his hands as the world goes dark. He dies knowing that justice will be done and that he's not alone.

Outcome 2: What actually happened. Dies in an uncomfortable position being accused of a crime he didn't commit, while his murderer appears to get away with it. This seems to objectively be a worse fate, the suffering in Outcome 2 is much higher than in Outcome 1.

Now do we care about the suffering of the dying? It's not like they'll be around to complain about it! But I think that yes, most humans do care about the suffering of the dying. And it does seem the police's actions increased his suffering.

They underestimated how badly he was stabbed, just as in the Floyd "killing" the police underestimated how fented up Floyd was. Seems pretty close to me. Different motivation, same deal.

In the George Floyd killing, it was the police who were responsible.

That's a point very much in contention. Floyd responded to his arrest by swallowing a bunch of drugs to avoid possession charges. His tox screen showed more than enough fent to kill a man. He actually had a nearly identical situation 13 months prior, where he was arrested for being a general lowlife criminal, swallowed all his drugs, ODed and nearly died, but in that instance the ambulance arrived in 4 minutes instead of 9 and he was revived.

That's a point very much in contention.

It is not in contention. Multiple autopsies confirmed George Floyd's death was caused by homicide. A court found the police officer who sat on his neck guilty of second degree murder. You clearly do not like the man, but that doesn't change the facts.

  • -36

I don’t believe this is in contention anymore, but I come from the other side. The data looks very clear it was 90% an OD with Chauvin being negligent in realizing he was ODing and providing health care.

So Yes I agree with you this is not in contention. It was just an OD.

That is in contention. I hold it in contention. Minneapolis juries aren't valid.

Yes a jury with an activist who lied to get on and a jury who knew if they gave the “wrong” verdict their town would be destroyed and their lives at risk. After all Congresswomen showed up to make that point. It was for all intents and purposes a show trial.

Ultimately, I don't know what best practice for maximizing a fentanyl-overdose patient's chances of survival looks like, but I would be very surprised if it looks like pinning him down in a chokehold, any more than best practice for a stab victim is to try to handcuff him. Whether Floyd died from physical choking or as a result of the drugs he'd ingested doesn't let Chauvin off the moral hook; in Floyd's as in Nowak's case, it would still leave us with officers who wasted time "restraining" an already-dying man instead of trying to save his life.

If it’s an OD it 100% lets Chauvin off the moral hook. You can say he was not competent and should have realized it’s an OD and healed him, but that is potentially an elite talent.

I am not sure how hard it is save George there. I think it’s harder than if you asked me to recite the alphabet. If reciting the alphabet saves him then I am morally culpable. If it was as hard as doing brain surgery then I am not morally culpable.

His blood level would not have been reversed by Narcan even if they'd dosed him with it the second they arrived.

Admittedly not a toxicologists so I don’t know if that is true. But that case changed a lot of my beliefs. I know longer think we live under the rule of law. I’ve got no problem with Trump setting up billion dollar slush funds with government funds. Having the modern Democrat Party in power is no longer viable. The goal is to win. Accumulate power you can use. Don’t lose it.

I think Thiel likes Argentina long term. They do seem very gay so maybe that’s part of it. Having a friendly government to go to as an escape route must be considered now.

I think the 'eggshell skull' principle would apply to this case.

It does not; for one thing, it's a civil doctrine.

The biggest difference is that Floyd was human excrement. The world was better off with him not in it. Novak wasn’t committing a crime. Novak wasn’t tweeking from hard core drug use. Novak wasn’t acting fucking wild when the police showed up. Novak doesn’t have a history of home invasions where Novak held a gun to a pregnant woman.

The police’s job with Floyd was to restrain him because he was a criminal who was acting very wild. Notably the police did not start with kneeling on his back. That’s the first video that came out but if you watch the bodycam footage the police tried a lot before kneeling on him.

The biggest difference is that Floyd was human excrement.

Less of this, please.

No. I provided the support for way he was terrible. I spoke plainly.

As I said in my other reply, by saying Chauvin was responsible for his death, I am not necessarily saying that he acted wrongly. Prioritizing the safety of the innocent over that of the guilty can be the correct utilitarian choice in a fraught situation. But you're still responsible for pulling the trolley lever. Even if it wasn't you who tied the person you sacrifice to the trolley tracks, you still made that choice; you can justify your actions, but they are your actions.

The analogy doesn’t hold. In the trolley situation, the victim is exogenously tied to the tracks. In the criminal situation, the criminal tied himself to the tracks. It was in fact just desserts (ie do bad things and bad things are likely to happen to you)

I don't actually think it especially changes the trolley problem if the single person is a suicide attempt.

More comments

Floyd was exuberantly resisting arrest and either lying about being unable to breathe or having a medical episode well before anybody laid a finger on him. Chauvin followed the department handbook (He could have attended to him earlier on the ground, sure, but he also likely didn't have a reasonable expectation of the guy overdosing) on how to restrain somebody resisting arrest. I don't mind a court finding him negligent for not checking Floyd but murder is an absolute miscarriage of justice

Wasn't the murder conviction more a result of how Minnesota names negligent manslaughter?

Floyd was in the care of the police and hence they were responsible to provide medical care to him, which they didn't, they exacerbated the situation.

Perhaps this view is overly harsh to the cops, perhaps it isn't, I don't really know (even if sentencing probably was excessive). The point though, is that it wasn't really a murder conviction in the colloquial sense of the word.

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that "(partly) responsible for his death" is a much lower bar than "guilty of murder".

More comments

but I would be very surprised if it looks like pinning him down in a chokehold,

Why? Every policy is written in blood. How many people going on deranged crashouts would hurt themselves or someone else if they weren't forcibly restrained?

I once called the cops to assist some delirious homeless guy who fell over and cracked his head open on the sidewalk. Do you think the cops should have let Floyd drive away while ODing on fent, which is what he would have done otherwise?

I'll go on the record and say that if I'm ever in a similar state, I would be thankful to be restrained, because I have a bare minimal "deserves to live in a decent society" level of concern for the likelihood that I might accidentally hurt someone else while out of my mind.

I said "best practice for maximizing a fentanyl-overdose patient's chances of survival"; not "police best-practice for dealing with a drugged-out suspect who might be dying but might also still be a danger to others". It may very well be that keeping him restrained on the off-chance that if they'd relaxed the hold, he would have turned out to be faking enfeeblement and run off and harassed people, was a defensible gamble for public safety. But if, in a situation of Bayesian uncertainty, you choose to prioritize neutralizing the potential threat posed by an individual over that individual's own health, and it turns out he was in fact dying, then you're responsible for his death. That doesn't necessarily mean you made the wrong choice, but you did make a choice that led to his death and you need to own up to that.

But if, in a situation of Bayesian uncertainty, you choose to prioritize neutralizing the potential threat posed by an individual over that individual's own health, and it turns out he was in fact dying, then you're responsible for his death.

It's also worth noting that the police were surrounded by hostile people yelling at them. That's going to split attention and make it difficult to stop and check the guy and do first aid. And they had an ambulance on the way. (Iirc, it actually took a wrong turn and was delayed for several minutes.)

And the concern isn't just that Floyd might have hurt others. He could very easily have tried to get up and fallen and hurt himself. Like I said, I've personally seen someone in a comparable state literally crack their own skull open by falling over and hitting the corner of the curb. And in such a case, the PD is still getting sued or worse because "He was obviously in distress, why didn't you keep better control of him!"

If Floyd ingested a gigadose of drugs then he's responsible for his own death far more than the policeman who held him down.

And likewise if Digwa stabbed Nowak through the lung he's far more responsible for Nowak's death than the police officers who failed to get Nowak first aid, but responsibility still exists even if it isn't exclusive.

More comments

If Nowak had been actively resisting and fleeing arrest, as Floyd was at the time of the start of the restraint, there would be some sort of point you're making. It's not like Floyd was passed out in the gutter when Chauvin rocked up and then Chauvin spontaneously decided to kneel on his upper back.

Reddit levels of "nuh-uh!" with nothing to back it up.

The Fall of Minneapolis is an entire documentary, that you can watch for free, about the extensive fuckery around the George Floyd case. While, charitably, there is room to argue about Floyd's cause of death, the idea that any sort of fair process of justice was carried out after the fact is close to laughable at this point. Chauvin being in sentenced to over 20 years is perhaps the most recent and glaring example of a literal political prisoner.

Then you have to layer on the contest of lackdown double-standards from 2020. "Stay home with no exceptions unless you want to murder your whole neighborhood" gave way to "It's not possible to catch COVID at a George Floyd rally" awfully quickly.

The entire George Floyd meta-cycle ought to be studied as one of those particularly shameful mass events in American history. I'd put it up there with, ironically enough, something like the spontaneously lynchings in the South over the first 20 - 30 years of the 20th century.

Yeah I'm sure the position contributed to Floyd's death on some level but I feel it is a rounding error compared to the drug ingestion and it was an appropriate thing to do to a felon actively resisting arrest. I've also yet to see anybody render anybody unconscious via the 'chokehold' that Chauvin was applying which is definitely an uncomfortable position but is not any sort of actual strangulation.

No, two autopsies found different results. The original one "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

The second autopsy, the "independent" one, was hired by the family, represented by race-baiting huckster Benjamin Crump.

The tox report found Fentanyl 11 ng/ml. 2-3 ng/ml is lethal for someone without a high tolerance

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

That's not utterly conclusive, but I think any reasonable person would consider it a reasonable doubt, especially given the unprecedented pressure campaign going on. If you were a medical examiner during the Summer of Love, would you have been willing to send all the people burning cities into a berserk rage by declaring it an OD? At what confidence level?

I've got no doubt that the position and the stress of being arrested contributed somewhat to Floyd dying. But I'm also sure that his diet and existing lifestyle factors also did and nobody from McDonald's went to prison

And well he should’ve been arrested. Don’t steal from stores; don’t get arrested.

Nigel Farage has demanded 'white hot rage'

Quick correction: he demanded 'pure cold rage' and the BBC misreported it, for which they have now formally apologised.

I was told by Scott Alexander that the mainstream media doesn’t lie so your post must be wrong.

Less of this, please.

It’s not even particularly egregious, and might even pass as a joke, but you’ve got something like 8 mod warnings for content-free snark. Raise the filter just a little bit.

Fair enough. I do think most are jokes (but this one was snark—will try to raise the filter a little bit)

Apparently the BBC misreported it as 'white cold rage', even stranger

Ice and snow are commonly white. I'll allow it.

Violent crime committed by Indians in the United States is almost unheard of (even the people who hate Indians only ever accuse them of fraud or reckless driving). I know that the difference with the UK is almost certainly due to differing selection effects, but what specific policies cause that?

I don’t think we are ever getting an immigration moratorium, so that makes it vital to ensure that we never end up with European-style immigration to the United States. The first step to that is figuring out what European-style immigration even is.

The illegal casinos in my hometown are all run by Gujaratis. That's organized crime.

Violent crime by Indians is also rare in the UK.

Violent crime committed by Indians in the United States is almost unheard of

Or....conspiracy theory level: 5 out of 10.

Indian violent crime towards other ethnicities is almost unheard of. I believe, however, (and, again, this is an admitted 5/10 conspiracy theory) that there are honor style killings from the sub-continent that get either non-reported to police or disguised as something like the kitchen fires euphemism.

Obviously I can't prove this, but I dont' believe in holes in the ocean. When one group within a population has a bizarre statistical outlier relative to all others, there's either an obvious cause or the numbers are wrong (hence, hole in the ocean).

Most of the honor killing stuff is far more Muslim Mirpuri Pakistani afaik. Hindu culture doesn't really have the same touchpoints even if surely it still happens

It might simply be a case of thinking they could get away with it in the UK, whereas in the US carries a much higher sort of risk.

India has more genetic diversity within country than like even an Englishmen to a Chinaman. IQ studies show much of the population is in competition with Africa for lowest IQ population. You can’t have Indian or Pakistani immigration into your country without having heavy filtering.

I do not see what genetic diversity has to do with any of this. It seems to me that both you and @2rafa are trying to deflect attention from the real issue.

I think I speak for many on the right when I say that I don't care about the genetic diversity of the subcontinent or what the IQ of the median Sikh is. What I care about is that a young man got stabbed and the police displayed no obligation nor inclination to help him. Everything else is a fucking distraction.

Good things happen when you let good people into your country. We get less Sikh guy stabbing whitey in London if we just never let Sikh guy into the country.

Your solution that is something like “I just want competent cops” fails from first principles long term. If you let in population groups with low IQ or moral inferiority or cultural inferiority within a generation or two they will be the majority and just tell you to fuck off.

It’s best to just not let into your country Indian Sikh stabby people.

India has more genetic diversity within country than like even an Englishmen to a Chinaman. citation needed

It’s factual. From Grok Key Metrics: F_ST (Fixation Index) F_ST measures genetic differentiation between populations (0 = identical, 1 = completely different; values are usually small in humans). • Within India: F_ST between major South Asian groups ranges from 0.02 to 0.15. Overall pooled F_ST 0.072 (95% CI 0.061–0.084). Tribal vs. caste/non-tribal groups can reach 0.15. North Indian Indo-European speakers show high heterozygosity; isolated tribes show lower diversity and higher homozygosity due to endogamy.  • Between Han Chinese and Europeans/Caucasians: Typically 0.10–0.12. This is a standard continental-scale differentiation value. Some Indian subgroups are as genetically distant from each other as Europeans are from East Asians. This stems from: • Ancient Ancestral North Indian (ANI) component (related to West Eurasians, Middle Easterners, Central Asians). • Ancient Ancestral South Indian (ASI) component (distinct, with deep South Asian roots). • Later admixtures (e.g., Iranian-related farmers, Steppe pastoralists). • Long-term endogamy (caste/tribe-specific marriages for 2,000+ years), founder effects, and geographic isolation, which amplify differences.  India’s 5,000 ethno-linguistic groups, plus waves of migration since 50,000 years ago (mostly from one major Out-of-Africa pulse, with later inputs), create a mosaic. Indians harbor significant unsurveyed variation and higher Neanderthal ancestry diversity than many groups.  East Asia/China Contrast Han Chinese (the majority “Chinamen” reference) show low internal diversity. F_ST within Han subgroups is tiny (0.0002–0.001 or so between North/South Han). China overall is far more homogeneous than India or Europe due to historical expansions and less deep structure.  Europe has moderate internal structure (e.g., North-South or Finland vs. Southern Italy F_ST ~0.01–0.023), but still less than India’s extremes.

Not sure why it copy and pasted like that.

Single line breaks render as sentences. Like this. To get a proper paragraph, include two spaces after each line.
Like so.
For a little trailing space, it’s double line breaks.

There.

Anyway, I second the Grok critics. It’s kind of like going to the tabloids for primary sources. Even if they cite something, the chances of it panning out are inversely proportional to how exciting the headline was.

Fst is wrong criterion here because two inbred groups can have high Fst even if differences between them are minor. Euclidean distances matter.

Sure, it is expected that India would be genetically diverse if it lies on edges between racial groups, but more than EUR-CN?

Did you copy-paste Grok output? This might be correct or approximately correct. But I have low confidence in raw LLM output. I use these things at work and they say weird stuff and I demand a citation and they cannot find one. I'm pretty skeptical of these things.

LLM textdumping is for midwits who dont know what theyre talking about and using word vomit to overload discussion via gish gallop. Just chadgif and say you dont care.

Aren’t they usually fine for summarizing research? Ya sure I did the Reddit thing of just googling and pasting first link as source. But I do think the AIs give a generally ok overview.

They are okay for summarizing research. But if you think it may be wrong, it can't back its facts up. Or you tell it you think it is wrong so it pivots with equal confidence to a new set of claims more in line with your demands.

Your post well could be correct. But with low confidence.

IQ studies show much of the population is in competition with Africa for lowest IQ population

Is this largely a caste thing? Are there differences between regions (beyond differences in caste composition)?

I believe so, yes. A Tamil Brahmin and a Kashmiri Brahmin and a Gujarati Brahmin are completely different groups. You can't even reliably tell which is which via physiognomy either. It's perfectly possible for one Tamil Brahmin to be 5 shades darker than an Ethiopian, and another to pass for a White guy, even if they're from the same town. The US typically gets this cohort.

Yeah acting like the Indian population is genetically contiguous is stupid. It's a large country/region. Same for the Han Chinese since you don't need to be a geneticist to tell the difference between median northerner and median southerner since it's like 5 inches of height and notably different skin tone

Real fucking talk whats the goddamn point of indians highlighting their fucking genetic differences from North to south. Doesnt fucking change that a southern ASI looks more like his northern kin than a subsaharan african or a tibetoburman or austronesian just as the northern ANI looks closer to the ASI than the aryan phenotypes absent aggressive genetic conquering by western asiatic invaders. Its not genetically contiguous but its not genetically closer to Europeans or Slavs or Latams. Maharashtrans and Gujus and Rajastanis bragging about how genetically distant they are from Bihari or Telegana subhumans is done to emphasize how noble their particular strain of Indian is. Yet in foreign lands these people all fucking band together first to exploit the gora. So fucking tell me whats the goddam fucking point of splitting these fine differences when they dont fucking matter.

Wouldn't know genetically but just eyeballing Southern Indians and Northern Indians is pretty trivial in terms of features and size

Genetically humans are 99% chimp, 60% banana, 80% lizard. We can absolutely have nontrivial genetic difference with someone else and it wouldn't fucking matter at this gene level. Indians harping about how different their pure guju brahmin blood is against filthy bihari dalits is indian desperation to larp as something other than what they are. As if being different from a dalit makes one closer to the latin mediterranean or arab phenotypes indians continually pretend they are something they are not: subcontinentals that foreigners do not care to nor derive useful meaning from differentiating.

I'm just saying there's regional differences not that there's some huge wellspring of diversity. Most non-Indians would be able to tell difference between a median Kerala native and a median Punjab native on sight which doesn't have a ton to do with the caste system. It's a physical distance corresponding to like London to Sicily.

Plus hugely different flows of immigration/foreign overlordship means admixtures are different

My barely-informed understanding is that the United States has mostly been getting higher-caste Indians for a long time via H1-Bs and so on, whereas Britain has been getting random Pakistanis and Punjabis. Canada started with higher-caste Indians and recently has been flooded with more miscellaneous ones.

Miscellaneous would have been better in fact -- organized crime is a thing in India, and these groups are purposely bringing in flunkies on fake student visas to run drug and extortion stuff in Canada for quite a while now. There's also a tradition of pretty extensive drug dealing and such by ethnic Indians in the suburbs of Vancouver and Toronto going back 30-40 years -- but this was mostly the children of first-wave immigrants and carried out in conjunction with local pre-existing gangs, so kind of a different thing.

I know that, but why? Does Britain allocate immigration slots by lottery? Is it just whoever gets on a British Airways flight in Mumbai? Did they consider a merit system and decide against it, or did the issue never come up at all?

A dam in Pakistan displaced people, Some employers wanted cheaper labour too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirpuri_diaspora

Under the British Nationality Act 1948, citizens of Commonwealth countries had the right to enter and settle in the UK freely. They then tightened this up somewhat later on. But in effective terms the gates are still wide open since there are ways around these rules and a political elite that actively resists immigration restriction.

The timeline of Mirpuris in the UK is roughly:

1947-1961 - After Pakistani independence, the UK still allows free immigration of Commonwealth citizens. For reasons that are not obvious, working-class Pakistanis moving to the UK are mostly Mirpuri. Some low-wage industries like textiles are actively seeking to hire Pakistani immigrants because they are cheaper than white Britons.
1961-68 - the Mangla Dam is built, displacing about 110k Mirpuris. About 5k moved to the UK and joined the existing Mirpuri community in the UK before the doors closed.
1962 - The Commonwealth Immigrants Act ends free immigration for Commonwealth citizens. At this point there are about 25k ethnic Pakistanis in the UK, mostly Mirpuri.
1962-1983 - The Mirpuri population in the UK doubles more than once a decade due to chain migration and natural increase.
1983 - The Thatcher government introduces the "Primary Purpose Rule", saying that marriage to a British citizen doesn't get you a visa unless you can demonstrate that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration-related. In effect, this means that you can no longer use obviously-arranged marriages for immigration purposes. The doubling time of the British Mirpuri population increases to about 15 years.
1997 - One of the first things the incoming Blair government does is to abolish the Primary Purpose Rule, which they consider racist. Chain migration increases, with arranged marriages to cousins becoming a problem.

You have to add two extra spaces at the end of a line in order to make a line break.

Also there's a ton of Indian background chain migration especially considering how many commonwealth countries have established market dominant minority Indian populations. I think it can create a misnomer with certain anglosphere countries where direct Indian immigration has gotten a lot higher recently but their overall Indian levels were already higher than expected due to outflow of African Indians.

Market dominant minorities tend to have more mobility/opportunity to emigrate.

UK, Australia and NZ did not historically filter as well as the US. In NZ and Oz, it's typically rural Punjabis who apply for the cheapest course they could find that's eligible for a student visa, drop out mid-course, and do some shady stuff to get on a work visa. There's been many incidences of Indian owned restaurants in NZ underpaying other Indian migrant workers.

Chain migration also going to make it difficult to filter. I'm an Australian and I'd say like half of the subcontinental classmates I had in high school came via other parts of the Commonwealth where their parents or grandparents had emigrated

Presumably there's something to do with the former Empire relationship.

I don't know how Britain allocates its immigration quotas, but the obvious main difference would be that the US has been selecting for ability to qualify for H1-Bs and Britain has not.

I'm afraid you were beaten to the punch.

Yeah, someone else already took a stab at this.

Bit slow however you slice it.

Too soon!

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