site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   10370 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 8, 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.

MENA

Somali, Sudanese

Nitpick, that's not MENA, that's black African.

I believe Kulak once predicted that the flashpoint for organized European resistance would happen in Northern Ireland.

So sad this happened but it's a natural consequence of the white man's listening deficiency and their immigration policy. White people will do nothing, as always. There are men in the right wing that should probably be running white civilization who post on X from the Bahamas instead because white people insist on cultural communism instead where the lowest, dumbest, most immature whites get a vote equal to classicist philosophers and race scientists. This obviously naturally leads to the immigration policy we see, and it won't stop until the deep rot in the white race is addressed. But that will require being eaten up by the immigrants first, most likely. Unless AI simply ends history.

There are men in the right wing that should probably be running white civilization who post on X from the Bahamas instead because white people insist on cultural communism instead where the lowest, dumbest, most immature whites get a vote equal to classicist philosophers and race scientists.

Antiracism is probably positively correlated with IQ, and lower class people are likely less antiracist in part because they're less likely to go to college.

I think there's a nonlinear effect, and well-educated, manly 140+ IQ people will all be scientific racists, while 120 IQ striver urban midwits will be anti-racist. The latter rule in the name of the rabble, and you are seeing the consequence of that.

120 IQ is considered midwits now? Is this IQ inflation?

But more seriously, many of my super intelligent friends (I’m talking top 1%, ML researcher at OpenAI and the like) are anti-racist and afflicted with TDS. Maybe they just don’t think about politics all that much. Maybe California is a bubble.

120 is only moderately above average. There are still plenty of schoolteachers at that number (roughly translates to a 1200 SAT).

120 is the top 9% which I wouldn’t categorize as “mid” in any way but maybe midwit is just a technical term that I didn’t understand.

"Midwit" is the term for "sure okay this person has a life they enjoy and a family and is successful in their mid-level white or skilled blue-collar job, while I am on a range of anti-depressants and still trying to make that seven figure tech salary, but I'm so much smarter than that midwit on an IQ test so I am superior which means I am better even if objectively I am unhappier and failing at life".

No, a midwit is a term for a slightly-above-average intelligence person who is fairly good at learning things... but isn't smart enough or curious enough to actually consider why the things they learned are the way they are, or if in fact they are not. Or what @erwgv3g34 said.

The way I've seen "midwit" being thrown around, there is a definite aroma of sour grapes in the air. But of course, your lived experience may be different and I cannot gainsay that 😁

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