site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   9673 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.

Some years ago, I wrote an article complaining about an irritating tic wherein progressive journalists will assert "Alice has faced controversy in the past for her problematic opinions" but will refuse to tell the reader what those opinions are, thereby allowing them to draw their own conclusions. I argued that this should always be taken a tacit admission that the problematic opinions in question are ones that the average reader can be assumed to agree with. If there was a smoking gun (e.g. Alice has consistently argued that the Holocaust didn't really happen), the journalist would say that outright. Their reluctance to tell the reader what the opinions in question are illustrates a lack of confidence in their own opinions to win in the marketplace of ideas.

I now think this is a specific example of a general rule: if a political partisan doesn't want to talk about a particular story, it's because they know that it favours their ideological opponents' worldview more than their own.

Andrew Doyle has an article called "Henry Nowak and the politics of deflection" in which he notes that a Spanish newspaper, El País, has published exactly one article about the case, which takes Nigel Farage to task for cynically "weaponising" the case to further his supposedly far-right agenda. (The article doesn't even include a photo of Nowak, but does include a photo of Farage.) The woke gobshite I mentioned a couple of hours ago insists that, because Digwa was arrested, convicted and sentenced to life in prison, therefore there's nothing to see here and anyone who wants to talk about it is a "racist idiot".

The reason this man wants to focus on the fact that Digwa and his mother were convicted is because it's the only aspect of this case which is remotely flattering to the British establishment, and to the progressive worldview more broadly. In every other particular about this case, progressives know they haven't got a leg to stand on, and that it vindicates just about every complaint conservatives have been making for years about immigration, ethnic enclaves, clannishness and two-tier justice. Consider:

  1. Almost entirely without provocation, a second-generation Indian immigrant stabbed a white Briton to death.
  2. The only reason he was able to stab his victim is because Britain's notoriously stringent laws against their citizenry carrying weapons of any kind include religious exemptions for Sikhs.
  3. Rather than realising the gravity of his error and attempting to help his victim, the killer spends the next hour or so filming himself mocking him (which, to my mind, suggests that his primary motivation for murdering Nowak was his own amusement).
  4. Eventually, the killer realises that he's going to be in big trouble pretty soon, so he calls his brother, tells him what he's done and asks for help. Rather than calling an ambulance and urging the killer to turn himself in, the entire family springs into action to cover up his crime.
  5. They call the police, cynically appealing to their progressive sensibilities by claiming that the killer was the victim of a racist hate crime.
  6. Despite presenting no actual evidence that the killer was the victim of any kind of assault (never mind a racially-motivated one), this absurd cover story initially appears to work: the police officers responding to the call, witnessing the stabbing victim lying on the ground, bleeding to death and complaining that he can't breathe, nonetheless attempt to arrest him essentially because a brown person told them to.
  7. Throughout the entire legal process and even during sentencing, the killer refuses to accept culpablity and continues to insist that his victim was a racist, as if this would justify the killer's conduct even if it was true.

Read down through the numbered list above: there is no element of it which casts the progressive worldview in a positive light. (Even the fact that Digwa and his mother were convicted is far from a slam-dunk: although his father and brother have appeared in court on weapons charges, they really ought to be charged with obstruction of justice or whatever the equivalent crime in the UK is.) In other words, this is an anti-scissor statement: there is no possible way you can spin it that is remotely flattering to the progressive worldview. In this scenario, short of admitting that a stopped clock is right twice a day, the only winning move you can make is to ignore the case altogether and loudly proclaim that anyone who wants to talk about it is either a far-right racist, or "legitimising" complaints made by far-right idiots. Goodthinkers do not Notice™: they ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears.

the killer refuses to accept culpablity and continues to insist that his victim was a racist, as if this would justify the killer's conduct even if it was true.

And he is correct. A society doesn't normally prosecute soldiers for murder, because they are killing that society's enemies. Why else do you think only that group is de facto allowed to go around armed? (Canada at least requires you to have it zip tied to the sheath so it can't be drawn, but in fairness that was 10 years ago.)

Here, though, English society gets to have its cake and eat it, too- killing its enemies while at the same time being able to claim murder is bad. Certainly confusing for the soldier in question- because here his claims that he was acting on society's general orders (to kill its enemies for their crime of existing, or "racism" for short) won't save him from prosecution.

Then again, soldiers get thrown under the bus all the time.

"Violent Sikhs are just modern UK soldiers" is a hot take, but if he is getting convicted, isn't that evidence against the entire idea? And what you're left with is just inflammatory rhetoric?

I think there's an argument to be made that those from honour cultures find that 'fighting words' are sufficient to prompt violence. I clearly don't agree with this, but I believe that this is the cultural operating system that the family is running. It explains their 'you're racist' outbursts 1 2 3 against the judge and Nowak's family after sentencing. They find the killing justified because of the words they were told were spoken by Digwa.

I dont think they actually believe the judge is racist. The words are unimportant compared to the ease of employment of a thought terminating cliche to expatiate the consequences of chimping out. Honor and izzat and respect and culture are words that can stop castigation when employed by minorities, and they use it to be assholes not to live their lives in a special way. Indians in management use 'culture fit' to justify firing everyone nonindian and bringing in a village of their own kin to parasite off the organization till it fails. Its just whichever magic word has weight and we are still living in the shadow of st floyd

I agree. I think its just 'arguments as soldiers'. Tools to be used or discarded according to how convenient they are in the moment.

Hence "have cake and eat it too".

Just because they're throwing the killer away does not imply [those who define UK society] are not in complete agreement that what the killer did was justice.

It might not imply it in a strict sense, but I would hope that you can at least bring a concrete example of someone "who defines UK society" saying that what the killer did was justice.

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