site banner
PaperclipPerfector  17hr ago (text post)   2631 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?

Fairly easy. You do naval blockade on Somalia until they accept them. Their welfare is none of our concern. You arrest Somali politicians. If needed military strikes. You change the constitution that only Swedes have human rights in Sweden. You go with the least amount of cruelty to achieve your goal, but you shouldn't let the cruelty itself distract you.

Actually someone on X did a post on it. The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

To do this, Sweden would have to

  • Convert a proportional-to-population majority of the parliaments of Europe
  • Have those parliaments send representatives to PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) such that they have a bare majority
  • Have government put forth based judicial nominees to the ECHR and PACE approve then
  • Bring a case overturning all that precedent
  • Remigrate

In practice, there is no way for Sweden as a national unit, to accomplish this.

The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

Assassinate the judges. The next will be more reasonable. At some point drastic measures will be needed to solve europe's problems. The pan European bodies are most at fault for them anyway.

Ya know, Ken White, of Popehat fame, just posted a lengthy, whiny screed about how ridiculous it is that Bluesky(!), of all places, gave him a timeout for saying someone should kill Elon Musk.

Must have been shocking to him that even Bluesky balks at calls for murder of your political enemies (when your enemies are, after all, objectively evil people who need to die to prevent more evil).

The Motte is not Bluesky. However, we still tend to draw the line at explicit calls for assassination. And no doubt if someone called for assassinating Elon Musk here, it would get lots of reports and downvotes.

We give people a long leash-- you can even Kulak-post about how violence is good, actually-- but specifically saying "kill these people" is getting pretty close to the sort of thing that could get Zorba served with a warrant, or whatever they do in Europe.

Don't do this.

Can we not do this?

...or leave the ECHR. The Brits are already floating the idea...

Which would trigger an immediate shitstorm.

Even putting aside that not everyone is the US with a ton of materiel sitting around*, why would you do this? This risks destroying already fragile states, and then there's nobody to negotiate with. There are ways to pressure nations like Somalia - no aid, cutting off remittances - that don't rise to this level.

And, of course, if you are cutting out human rights law (the real problem) there's nothing stopping you from dumping them in whatever third country will have them (e.g. Rwanda) and then turning a blind eye to how they handle them (most likely drive them back home with "incentives").

* Remember Libya? And those were countries that maintained some military capacity.

I would change how deportations works then. It is not a country's job to care where people go or aid them. You order them out. If they stay after the deadline you remove protection of the law from them. Compliance is their problem, not yours.

Fairly easy. You do naval blockade on Somalia until they accept them. Their welfare is none of our concern. You arrest Somali politicians. If needed military strikes. You change the constitution that only Swedes have human rights in Sweden. You go with the least amount of cruelty to achieve your goal, but you shouldn't let the cruelty itself distract you.

Sweden is going to have to rather decidedly alter its armed forces if this is the plan. Time to start building nuclear-powered supercarriers.

  • Step 1: conscript Somalians
  • Step 2: invade Somalia with your conscripts

Problem solved.

Manchus and Mongolians more or less did this to China. Armies of conscripted (enslaved?) Chinese assaulting Chinese fortifications under the leadership of foreign conquerors. Mongols who don't know how to build seige weapons motivating more technically inclined Chinese people to make and deploy them.

So they get drone industry too. Everyone wins. With modern warfare humans are optional.

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