site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23699 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?

My position is that you can do mass deportations (remigrations) without genociding people.

This is in opposition to OP who I quoted there and now here: "infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake."

There is no reason that, domestically, you cannot build and use deportation infrastructure that deports people without murdering them. Suggesting otherwise, like you, is insane and totally baseless.

More specifically, how do you imagine this happening for Somalis in Sweden? Somalia doesn't even have a functioning government that deserves the name, let alone one that would willingly accept and provide the infrastructure to take in millions of highly reluctant coethnics that they often won't even have a language in common with. There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp, sending a fleet of prison ships to the Horn of Africa, conquering a beachhead and forced-marching boatloads of people onto it at gunpoint (probably also with a temporary holding camp/fortification at the target site, so the first 500k can't interfere with unloading the second 500k).

So a few things

  1. Google says there are 80k somalis in sweden. Not a million
  2. Somalia does not have a functioning government. Just send them on boats or planes. They can't actually do anything to stop it.
  3. Literally just put them on a plane
  4. You are hysterical. Like what are you even saying here?

"There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp"

ummmm if you really really had to put them in a camp, just put them in a camp and then DON'T MURDER THEM. If you really had to do all the insane things in your fantasy, just do them and DON'T KILL THEM. How are you so mind raped that you immediately go to quadroon Ann Frank hiding in a sauna to dodge deportation flotillas instead of just like not murdering people? Huh?

Then you get all the problems with rounding up the people you want to send off at home, deciding what to do with the third-generation Somalis, half-Somalis and quarter-Somalis, Somalis being hidden by and protected by sympathetic Swedes, possible Somalis who swear they are Ethiopian, et cetera et cetera. You can't just slow-walk it either, because your flotilla that is parked off of Somalia is draining the budget more than the welfare payments did. Soon you find that between the ballooning military operation and the home front, you have to take a lot of inspiration from everyone's favourite continentals in the late 1930s.

Look I don't really care what criteria the swedes end up on. Reasonable minds can disagree on the appropriate percentages to achieve desomalianification. But you can do that without killing them. You can just give them a plane ticket and be done with it. You have concocted this this scenario with beachheads and expeditionary forces and a million somalis being carted off at gunpoint... why? Why would that happen? Its Somalia. They don't have a functional government. They don't have a navy. They don't have an air force. They don't control their borders. They don't control their own territory.

Maybe just bribe them? Send them to Rwanda instead? Do some negotiations with them to change their mind? Tell them Sweden will recognize Somalialand? Literally anything else than what you said? You can deport people without murdering them! The US deports orders of magnitudes more than Sweden, (mostly) murder free!

You literally claimed, in the line of yours I quoted, that there are "plenty" of examples. Can you actually produce one, or should I take your response as you retreating to a weaker claim (from "plenty of countries have..." to "there is no reason to believe it couldn't be done")?

This is what I said:

plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states.

Examples that support my claim are Operation Wetback in the 50s, as well as whatever DJT is doing today.

This is what you asked:

What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?

You have added your own qualifiers of (a) and (b) to my position. These are not my words, these are your words. You should know this, you wrote them. I did not write them. I just quote them. I am not going to give you examples of a position you have foisted upon me.

If I had said this then you would have a point:

plenty of countries have done mass deportations to target countries that don't take the people in voluntary and without using military force and / or turning into genocidal states.

But I did not say this above. I only said this here.

(a) is difficult to give an example of because it is rare to have a country that doesn't accept its own. Which is why I did not say this in my original claim.

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