site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24293 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is false. Fundamental to how and why the Pakistani rape gangs were allowed to operate was that the girls were chavettes at a time when statutory rape of chavettes was effectively decriminalised. About half the girls whose accounts form the first half of Rupert Lowe's report had already been sexually assaulted by male relatives, "stepfathers" or children's home staff before the Pakistani rape gangs got to them, with the perps being significantly less likely to face justice than the Pakistani gangs were.

If you are a middle-class married father in an intact family, your daughter was mostly safe.

I don't understand how this add-on makes the statement you're replying to false. Rape gangs chose vulnerable targets who didn't have much parental oversight - kinda obvious that those targets would be mainly working class and from dysfunctional households.

Why does the fact that many of these girls had previously been abused conflict with or deny the claim that much of the scale, perseverance and overall modus operandi these rape gangs were operating under very obviously were tied to the tribalism and ethno-religious chauvinism of the Pakistani, specifically Miripuri, diaspora?

The fact is that countless WOMEN within these communities were fully aware of what their male kinsmen were up to, but condoned it due to - in their own words - the victimized girls being outside of their community and faith. The mental tradeoff these diasporas operate under is very simple - "would sending a member of my family/clan to prison be better than a faithless outsider experiencing suffering at their hand? It would not, therefore I won't take action against it." This is how these rape gangs are allowed to operate with impunity - since quasi-everyone in the diaspora has some knowledge or involvement in it, combatting it by means of law enforcement would effectively engender taking legal action against the vast majority of the entire localized diaspora, which police nor politics won't do for obvious reasons. It's the exact same issue Europe has been having with gypsies for decades - trying to combat their criminality essentially means criminalising the entire community since the vast majority of them are criminals, accessories to the crime, or at the very least highly aware, yet unbothered by it.

This is false.

That's right. While it is true that that there are significant number of your Pakistani neighbors who could call up some friends to gang rape someone's daughter and their extended clan network will overlook it while the police ignore it to preserve "community cohesion", your daughter would be safe. Mostly.

Agreed. Morally and legally, there is no difference between "the authorities aided and abetted the gang rape of x thousand girls and one of them might have been your daughter" and "the authorities aided and abetted the gang rape of x thousand girls who were the kind of girls everyone considered rapebait anyway". The guilty parties should be drummed out of public life (they mostly have been) and, if they committed crimes, prosecuted. (They mostly didn't, although the Lowe report implies that some individual cops accepted bribes). But if you are asking the question "why is the average Brit not outraged by this?", which most Motteposters posting about this issue are, that is a question about politics.

Despite the best efforts of Nigel Farage, Rupert Lowe, Elon Musk etc to keep milking what is now very old news, the Pakistani grooming gang scandal has had less political legs than the Roman Catholic Man-Boy Love Association, the Afghan rapefugee scandals in various Continental European countries, or even a mostly-fake scandal like the US campus rape crisis. And the reason for that is precisely that your daughter is safe if you are someone who matters.

But the UK elite love to signal how much they care about minorities and the poor outside their household. This is a key part of the identity of the progressive elite in the Anglosphere. The problem with the grooming gang seems to be instead that, for the Anglo to care about the White poor, they had to go against the minority community. The math (maths?) on this was that their reputation would be more harmed by representing White poor than by representing the minority community, because its higher status to be worldly and pro-diversity than pro-White. But it’s the same group of people who promote welfare benefits and spots for the poor at Oxford who were unwilling to go against the minority block, no?

The problem with the grooming gang seems to be instead that, for the Anglo to care about the White poor, they had to go against the minority community.

I agree that this is true, but (to my knowledge, I’m not British) there’s an additional element of class at play in Britain. It’s obviously true that western elites writ large “love to signal how much they care about minorities and the poor outside their household” but in the UK this attitude is standing on the back of a long history of especially stark class differences which persist to this day, such that the poor are not merely “the poor” but fully other, a separate and inferior culture. Today they deserve pity and perhaps charity but are still broadly contemptible. This differentiates the native lower-class from poor immigrants, who are now seen as Diverse and Enriching to the culture, where the native poor are seen as the same drag on the culture they’ve been seen as for centuries.

I suspect this cultural history is the secret sauce for how this problem became so much more pronounced in Britain than anywhere else: other countries have problems with migrant crime, including sexual violence, but not with mass-scale organized rape gangs.

My intuition is that if it were the White poor who were raping the Pakistanis, it would be an instant cause célèbre among the upper classes who would demand the most severe punishments against those responsible, just as they do for racial incidents. It’s hard for me to imagine the British covering up the crimes of Whites against minorities, and it actually seems they try to do the opposite. So it’s not actually a class issue at all, because the Pakistanis are not in their class, yet would be a sympathetic victim group. It’s more like the intricate social class dynamic of the UK has been applied onto ranking a hierarchy of sympathy, where minorities are simply higher on the ranking of Innate Value. Just as in America, for many decades you couldn’t criticize Blacks for being violent, they had to be a sympathetic and you needed to make excuses.

Yeah I agree with that. I was really just wondering why Britain, specifically, had this particular problem. Plenty of places with problematic migrant groups (France, Germany, Sweden) did not have this qualitative kind of problem or this degree of coverup. I do think their particular history likely plays a role. But it could also be down to something as simple as no other country having large-scale migration of the particular Pakistani subculture that forms these rape gangs, like how only Sweden has issues with migrant gangs regularly throwing bombs at each other.

And the reason for that is precisely that your daughter is safe if you are someone who matters.

Everyone has heard of "damning with faint praise". I'm not sure what to call this. "Defense by appeal to damnation?"

If the defense of the British establishment is just "Who cares, they were poor?" then said establishment can kindly shut the fuck up forever on all other moral matters. They have no right to opine about anyone or anything else. Their every utterance will be dismissed with a Soviet-style "And have you stopped raping the poor girls?"

Forget "drummed out of public life", such an establishment would deserve to be violently purged. Genuinely worse than the history of racism in the US, and casually, without a shred of decency, grace, or remorse. More deserving of anti-Apartheid levels of hostility and scorn from the decent peoples of the West than Rhodesia and South Africa.

If the defense of the British establishment

It isn't a defence of the British establishment, it's an explanation for the passivity of the average middle-class Brit. Compare the public and political response to the grooming gangs to the equivalent response to the much lower number of second-generation Pakistani immigrants who blew themselves up on public transport around 2005 - that was a case where it could be you or your child.

The only possible defence of the British establishment is that it may have learned the lessons since the scandal first broke around 2010, one retirement at a time. Starmer, in particular, was one of the people involved in breaking the scandal (as Director of Public Prosecutions when the first batch of gang members were prosecuted) rather than in covering it up. Andy Burnham as metro mayor commissioned a metro-wide inquiry into grooming gangs on his turf (Rochdale and Oldham were the medium-sized ones, there were also some small ones) and was responsible for Greater Manchester being one of the only three police forces to consistently report ethnicity of criminal suspects, according to the 2025 audit carried out by Louise Casey.

Kier Starmer, as Director of Public Prosecutions, let 13,000 suspected rape gang members and pedophiles off with warning letters.

Andy Burnham appears to believe that the problem has already been fixed because they produced a report from an inquiry.

Now if the press reported something that said "While Kier Starmer was..it has been reported that ...were let off with warning letters" theMotte correctly would ask questions about how the use of weaselly words like "while" and "it has been reported", don't actually say who reported it based on what information or in fact that Kier Starmer was involved at all in these letters. Just that they happened while he was DPP. See how they carefully don't say he actually was responsible? Just that it happened WHILE he was in post?

While Donald Trump was President it has been reported millions of people across the world died in car accidents! See the issue?

What they are talking about are Child Abduction Warning Notices but these are drafted by the police and the parents/guardians of a child and nothing to do with the DPP at all. They're kind of like ASBOs but for suspected child abuse/abduction. Usually issued through Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH). To frame them as warning letters and being let off is disingenuous in the extreme and so is linking it to Starmer. He has no ability to decide when these are used or not as DPP.

Indeed the whole point of them is to try and move faster to protect children so that you don't need to wait for something bad to happen that you can evidence. It doesn't in any way substitute for a prosecution and indeed breaching one can be used in evidence. The Children's Society (see below) argued that Parliament should extend CAWN's as they were very useful in protecting vulnerable children.

CAWNS were designed specifically to be used in grooming or relative cases where the vulnerable child may not be willing/able to testify or go to the police and so getting evidence can be tricky. It allows the breach of the CAWN to itself be used as evidence. More use of CAWN's could have protected some of these girls. Unfortunately it wasn't until the advent of MASH's in the 2010's they started being used in numbers. Nothing to do with Starmer being DPP.

In fact it's very sneaky because the increase in the use of CAWNs as well as MASH's themselves were in part a reaction to the grooming scandals that were breaking. So they cite the evidence of the police making attempts to deal with grooming as evidence that Starmer (who has no control over police forces remember) was soft on grooming gangs! That is deliberate obfuscation. And as that tweet and yourself show, people will fall for it.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/68063/html/

"Child Abduction Warning Notices

The Policing and Crime Bill reforms police powers and specifically looks at Child Sexual Exploitation, making it the perfect opportunity to review the current lack of police powers to intervene and disrupt inappropriate contact between a vulnerable 16 and 17 year old and a person who may be grooming them for sexual or criminal purposes.

Child Abduction Warning Notices (CAWNs) are an early intervention and disruption tool used by the police as an effective way of disrupting contact between a vulnerable child and a predatory adult where there are concerns that the child may be at risk of harm, sexual exploitation, involvement in crime or there are other risks posed by an adult.

Issuing a CAWN is often part of on-going police investigations; they make it impossible for a potentially abusive adult to claim that they did not know that the person they were in contact with was a vulnerable child. This can be used as evidence in court if any later abuse or other crime takes place. This is particularly helpful in cases when a child does not recognise that they are at risk or is not prepared to disclose abuse so are unlikely to go to the police themselves.

Extending Child Abduction Warning Notices to Vulnerable 16 and 17 Year Olds Currently, a Child Abduction Warning Notice (CAWN) can be used to protect all children under 16. They can also be used to protect certain vulnerable groups of 16 and 17 year olds: those formally taken into care under section 31 of the Children Act 1989; those subject to an emergency protection order; or those in police protection. It is a common misconception, this is often a surprise to social workers and services when they first encounter it, that all children in care can be protected by a CAWN. This is not the case.

We believe that the group of 16 and 17 year olds in relation to whom CAWN can currently be used is not wide enough. This makes it very difficult for police and social services to protect vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds. Last annual statistics available shows that only 190 children aged 16-17 were taken into care by their local authorities under Section 31 (and can be protected by a CAWN). However, a further 4,320 young people of that age became looked after by their local authorities[vii] and won’t be able to receive this form of protection.

This means that, with the way CAWNs are currently implemented, only a very small minority of children in care – an exceptionally vulnerable group – can be properly protected and thus creates a two-tier system of protection within the care system. The provision as it currently stands protects only a tiny minority of vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds."

Thank you. I appreciate the added context. These sorts of posts are a big part of the value I find in this site.

I don't think it's a moral/ethical defense, but rather a sort of realpolitik analysis of why things are happening the way they are. Of course, once you enter that realm, then it follows that if enough anti-rape-gang Brits decide to implement what you say is deserved, there's no grounds by which to condemn them other than by gaining enough power to stop them. Which usually leads to bad results for everyone all around.

I don't think it's a moral/ethical defense, but rather a sort of realpolitik analysis of why things are happening the way they are.

Sure ,but there are implications that follow from that, such as the total loss of moral standing from the people being so analyzed.

Maybe it's my latent American Millennial Progressive bleeding through, but imagine this. Imagine that Latino gangs were doing this to black girls. Imagine that over the last 25 years, they had kidnapped, drugged, gang raped, and sex trafficked somewhere between 125,000 and 1.25 million underage black girls. Imagine if the defacto policy of the US government was to suppress any reporting, prosecute members of the community who spoke out, and literally gave escaped sex slaves back to the cartels responsible. Imagine if they blithely dismissed any calls for action, while reacting with utter fury and the full force of the state against any black parent who tried to protect his daughter. Imagine if, when pressed, the retreated to "Well, they're just ni**gers. You know how those girls are. Sluts were probably asking for it. What do you want us to do about it? What about the taco trucks and MLB players?"

I've lived through two generations of guilt and shame and atonement for vastly lesser offenses. The British establishment and middle classes come out of this looking like inhuman monsters.

Sure, but the thing about inhuman monsters is that they're often very good at having their way over the preferences of humans.

Despite the best efforts of Nigel Farage, Rupert Lowe, Elon Musk etc to keep milking what is now very old news

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The reason this news is still relevant / milkable is that precisely zip has been done to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Where are the new migration guidelines? Where is the MacPherson report? Where is the anti-anti-racist training for the police?

The closest I’ve heard of it is some white paper that Mahmood is supposedly shopping about.

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