site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9052 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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

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.

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?

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.

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