site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11545 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.

Look dude, I'm not gonna continue a conversation where you constantly move the goalposts.

If you can't accept a story where a guy was initially not arrested and charged and then later was convicted of manslaughter by a jury of his peers, then what will you accept?

This was a guilty white man who killed a black guy who was not treated as guilty on the scene but later found guilty so it's not even some theoretical argument.

immediately assumed that the visibly injured brown victim was the aggressor (perhaps because the white aggressor was acting "calmly" or cooperatively, as you claimed) and put him in handcuffs,

The victim was dead then! Your only nitpick here is that the victim was too dead to be put in handcuffs so it didn't count?

What goalposts am I moving? Compare the first request I made to you:

Show me an example of a white Briton (or hell, let's make it easier for you: a white person from anywhere) stabbing a brown man, the police arriving on the scene to find the white aggressor clearly uninjured and the brown man visibly incapacitated, the white man claiming to have been attacked first, and on his word alone, the police handcuffing the visibly incapacitated brown man. If you can show me that, or even something vaguely analogous, I will consider the possibility that there are no real CW aspects to this awful case.

with the most recent one:

I asked for an instance in which a white man attacked a brown man (though the sexes are irrelevant, and I would have accepted any person of colour), police arrived on the scene, immediately assumed that the visibly injured brown victim was the aggressor (perhaps because the white aggressor was acting "calmly" or cooperatively, as you claimed) and put him in handcuffs, while declining to put the white aggressor in handcuffs.

You realise that the example you provided does not meet that description, right?

The victim was dead then! Your only nitpick here is that the victim was too dead to be put in handcuffs so it didn't count?

It's not a "nitpick". It's the exact thing I was repeatedly asking you for, which you have yet to provide.

It's not a "nitpick". It's the exact thing I was repeatedly asking you for, which you have yet to provide.

Incredible. Your issue really is "that doesn't count because the victim was too dead to be handcuffed"?

We went from "vaguely analogous" to "nope, too dead to be handcuffed so doesn't count" and you aren't goal shifting?

My other issue is that, by talking about how Drejka wasn't charged until after public outcry, you're completely missing the point of my request .

In the Nowak case, I and others are criticising the conduct of the police officers who arrived on the scene. Those first responders bear no responsibility for determining whether Digwa should be prosecuted and, if so, for what offenses. That responsibility falls to the director of public prosecutions. From what I can see, the people responsible for prosecuting Digwa did their jobs perfectly: they charged him with murder, they collected evidence with which to mount a case against him, and they presented that case to the jury, who were persuaded.

In the McGlockton case, you are criticising the conduct of the people responsible for prosecuting Drejka. By all accounts, the police officers who arrived on the scene of the shooting did their jobs perfectly: they correctly identified McGlockton as in need of urgent medical care and brought him to the hospital, and also brought the cooperative perpetrator to a police station for questioning.

So, to bring it back to that phrase "vaguely analogous": what I'm specifically looking for is a violent crime with the racial valence reversed in which the responding police officers behaved poorly in a manner similar to the Nowak case. I am not looking for a violent crime with the racial valence reversed where any member of the criminal justice system behaved poorly. I am specifically looking for a case in which the responding police officers behaved poorly.

eversed in which the responding police officers

Sure we can know they behaved poorly in a vague sense because they didn't arrest the shooter on the scene despite him having been legally guilty for manslaughter, something we know because he was found legally guilty for manslaughter.

Let's recap. In the Nowak case, a brown man stabbed a white man. When the police came, they assumed that the mortally wounded white man was the aggressor, and went to arrest him, putting him in handcuffs and reading him his rights, rather than attempting to render medical care. I and many others think that this is outrageous. The essence of what makes it outrageous is that the victim was treated like a criminal.

You would have us believe that there's nothing "unique" about this case, and that things like it happen all the time with the racial valence reversed. I asked you to cite a specific example thereof, and the best you can come up with is a case in which a black man assaulted a white man, the white man shot him, and when the police arrived on the scene they immediately realised the black man was in urgent need of medical care and raced him to the hospital.

Henry Nowak: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately move to read him his rights and put him in handcuffs. When he tells them that he's been stabbed, they tell them he hasn't. They only realise the gravity of their mistake when it's too late.
Markeis McGlockton: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately recognise that he's been mortally wounded and race him to the hospital. At no point do they put him in handcuffs, read him his rights or arrest him.
darwin/guesswho/magicalkittycat: OMG, these two cases are exactly the same! It's like I'm seeing double here!

So again we went from

"Vaguely analogous" to "they didn't handcuff the shooting victim so it doesn't count" right?

More specifically:

  • They didn't treat the victim as a criminal; and
  • They immediately took the perpetrator to a police station for questioning

so it doesn't count.

They didn't treat the victim as a criminal; and

They inherently did when they took the self defense claim from the shooter legitimately (despite what we know now, it was not legally legitimate).

They immediately took the perpetrator to a police station for questioning

That's what happened after the scene. I can't find anything on what happened after to Digwa after the police realized Nowak was injured while on the scene, everything is focused specifically on Nowak himself but it seems like from what little I can find asking the chatbots that he was arrested on the scene (not being allowed to leave yet) after the injury was discovered.

They inherently did when they took the self defense claim from the shooter legitimately (despite what we know now, it was not legally legitimate).

The responding officers did not take the self-defense claim from the shooter legitimately. The individuals responsible for prosecuting him did. The responding officers brought the shooting victim to the hospital as soon as they arrived on the scene. Why are you pretending not to understand this extremely simple distinction?

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