site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   22612 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.

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.

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