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.

Let's look into the recent police video that's been going viral on Twitter.

In the video, a lone man is being harassed by a group of foreigners, and they knock him to the ground and hit him. Even before he gets up, a nearby police officer, who has been doing nothing up until then, tackles him into the wall. Understandably he resists somewhat. As a result of these events, the victim in this incident has been arrested and charged, and is now having the book thrown at him. Meanwhile, no effort at all was put into catching the original attackers. The police have released a statement saying they "have no concerns over the officer's actions." They have also asked for people not to share the footage.

This event seems to echo the vibes of a recent incident in Germany where a police officer tackled a bystander, getting himself stabbed to death by a terrorist as a result. It also seems to vibe with the murder of Henry Nowak, where the mortally wounded victim was arrested by the police while his killer was right there gloating.

In the context of culture war it seems like the "right wing" has firmly swung against the police in Europe, which is a big difference from in the United States, where a large portion of the right still is on side "back the blue". Of course there is still an anti-law enforcement wing of the right in the United States, pointing at politically motivated prosecutions, as well as the kid gloves for left-affiliated rioters. I also haven't heard about any similar incidents in the US where where police intervened in a situation on the "wrong" side (though plenty of police brutality in confrontations between police and others). And often American departments are very willing to throw their officers under the rug when the do something that looks bad.

I think to the public, there's a huge difference in police arresting, beating, and killing right wingers, versus being seen as taking the side of a group. Because it's no longer state vs crime (with a sprinkle of biased treatment) but directly being seen as taking a side, though the left has always seen the authority as evil nazi thugs.

Not sure if anything will come of this trend or it's a nothingburger. Maybe increased riots and disorder among the native population, who have historically been quite docile in the last century.

This event seems to echo the vibes of a recent incident in Germany where a police officer tackled a bystander, getting himself stabbed to death by a terrorist as a result.

It is easy to see why people come to this conclusion, as the only video that has been widely circulated is missing the crucial moments, but there is a second angle that shows that the man later tackled by the police officer was attacking a man restraining the knife-wielder, probably in confusion. He was then tackled by the police officer, the knife-wielder got free and stabbed the officer in the neck. I have unfortunately not been able to find the second video so you will just have to take my word for it.

I don't quite understand how it has come to this. In Germany at least the far-right has a convenient theory that they get this as punishment for WWII. That the victorious Allies ensured that Germany, by becoming multicultural, will never re-develop that ethno-nationalistic, militaristic ethos they had pre-WWII. But Britain won WWII. France won WWII. Who pushed them to do this?

But Britain won WWII. France won WWII.

Objectively incorrect. They both lost, and catastrophically too.

Britain mortgaged its entire empire to the US to have enough materiel to prosecute a war they wouldn't see a dime from winning (its expeditionary forces were all wiped off the Continent), and France literally surrendered to the Nazis about 6 weeks after they attacked. I'll remind you that France was the preeminent military on the Continent at the time... and Germany took as long to stomp them as the US would take to defeat the Iraqis in '91.

I get that the (Western European) cultures that live there think they won but they're delusional to think their contributions really made that much of a difference. I'd say that they should be thankful that the Americans weren't a colonial power, but "denazification" is kind of just the American name for colonialism.

And I sympathize. I really do. After all, if you become a power strong enough to challenge American interests you'll get wiped off the map like Germany was in '45, and it's fair to say that most Western European citizens would not like to go back to that state of affairs. (And what great prize would they receive? They're still never going to be as well-off per-capita as the Americans are even if the entire Continent was Nazi.)

Who pushed them to do this?

The United States of America

I think the EU generally has been resting on its laurels. There was an assumption that the status quo which prevailed since the cold war would hold forever. That free trade in a rules based world is so profitable for everyone that there is no way anyone would want to jeopardize it with war. Eventually, other countries would see the light and follow suit. Once they did, they would be rewarded with free trade and be welcomed as an ally. It was okay to be dependent on the US for security and Russia for gas, as they would have too much to loose to abuse their leverage.

This assumption extended to immigration. Why would you move to a country only to ruin it? It makes no sense. Obviously, immigrants would assimilate to the local culture as the resulting standard of living is far superior to where they came from.

Under this worldview, providing foreign aid, outsourcing manufacturing to China, and accepting massive amounts of asylum seekers made sense. I don't think either the elites or a majority of the population really considered that things might get worse. The idea that people might take our resources only to turn against us, was just not a narrative that many people believed.

Cheaper labour obviously and then it went into overdrive when the unholy alliance between business interests on the right and progressives on the left emerged and pushed criticism of immigration outside the overtook window.

The US used anti-colonialist Third-Worldism to appeal to the third world in the Cold War. Part of this was making very clear that the old imperial powers were being dealt with. See for example the incident of the Suez Canal when Eisenhower threatened to crash the UK economy if we didn't withdraw. Increasingly craven displays of acceptance were the only way to retain any world influence at all, and nobody with influence foresaw (or wanted to foresee) how far things would go.

The same broad impetus was behind many Civil Rights decisions in the US as well: the US government was well-aware that overt Jim Crow style racism against blacks in America was being used to entice resource-owning African countries under the USSR's welcoming skirts.

Importing the third world to make up for their own native working class's low fertility, which looked like a good idea at the time, but wasn't.

Wasn't low fertility seen as good at the time? Population bomb, Paul Ehrlich etc?

Yes, but most of that was aimed at the third world. The panic about working class fertility was more to do with unsupervised youths(nobody wants zillions of teen boys running around doing whatever they want), welfare concerns, and teen pregnancy.

Man even I admit that this looks bad...

Completely unjustifiable; the police officers should be disciplined. It's this sort of action that leads to community tensions being (rightfully, I'd add) inflamed.

To my eyes, the man believed he was still being assaulted by the group, which is why he wrapped his arm around the policewoman’s neck.

Then he looks down at her uniform and realizes he assaulted in mistaken defense, and in the adrenaline rush insists that the police go chase the real bad guys, which is a chargeable offense on grounds of offensive racism.

This whole sequence of events disturbs me.

Not sure if anything will come of this trend or it's a nothingburger.

This particular incident? Almost certainly a nothingburger. Nothing happened after Nowak's death beyond some impotent protests; two-tier policing and the Great Replacement continue.

Unlike the Nowak incident, here the young white man didn't die. Plus the young white man committed the sin of Hitting a Girl, which immediately makes him unsympathetic to both a large contingent of progressives and conservatives—even if she had the Power ImbalanceTM advantage of being a policewoman and he was hurt, confused, and disoriented by just having been culturally enriched.

The World Cup is on-going and especially with England still in it, this gives mainstream media more opportunities to bury or distract from the Birmingham story. Or play the reverse uno card with pro-black signal boosting: "See how Ngubu scored a fackin goal for us? Diversity is our strength!"

This particular incident? Almost certainly a nothingburger.

The Telegraph has now carried the story, and West Midlands Police have issued a press release saying they are now investigating who the African men were that carried out the attack (after initally saying that everything was fine on social media).

My prediction is that BBC News will be covering this tomorrow, along with the centrist papers like The Times. The Guardian will (reluctantly) follow the day after.

Depending on your definition of 'nothingburger', I would say the story is gaining traction. The victim will appear in court in a couple of weeks so I expect there'll be further coverage from that, whether he is found innocent or guilty.

Depending on your definition of 'nothingburger', I would say the story is gaining traction.

While there isn't a bright-line test, I'd say a somethingburger story is one that materially moves the Overton window, materially shifts opinions, results in widespread and prolonged civil unrest, or results in palpable policy changes/updates. A nothingburger story is a monster-of-the-week episode with little-to-no impact on the overarching plot line.

A story can gain traction but still ultimately yield a nothingburger, for example the murder of Jen Angel, the murder of Ryan Carson, or any of the many stories during #StopAsianHate (RIP).

As such, I don't expect the Birmingham incident to have a material marginal effect upon the Nowak homicide on these fronts.

Many incidents add up.

> material marginal effect

So we can add to the meme! Sorry your daughter got raped and your son was subject to attack and then jail as a result of the attack, but that’s the price to win at soccer

That's a lot less catchy than the original. Good memes are focused and pointed. Long-winded lists of grievances are why the left can't meme.

This event is definitely meme-able, but it would need to be something unique to this incident and not just lumped in with the rape stuff.

It’s not even the meme with some of these football players. The “American” who got red carded Balogon was only born here. And left at 2 months. In no meaningful sense is he American. He’s basically just a mercenary. So even if there wasn’t the issue of raping my sister for a futball player - it’s basically fraud with him playing for America. He must be the second best at his position in England.

This is something that’s annoyed me about international competitions lately (eg Olympics). There is a certain level of mercenary happening all of the time that cheapens the national element.

We have atleast 2 starters who are just cup of coffee Americans. Looks like 2 more who were military base Americans to foreign wives but never really lived in States, which is probably fine but still stretchy.

For the World Cup for a country like the US I would probably kick the cup of coffee Americans off the team (Balogun and Robinson) but keep the Air Force military brats.

The World Baseball Classic I am fine with the extreme stretchiness because it’s only going to be an exhibition since baseball doesn’t lend itself to national competitions (load management on Pitchers) and the limited geography of the game. You would only have 4-5 competitive teams (USA, Dominican, Venezuela, Japan). Throwing together a mostly second tier US team of guys with Italian surnames for Italy expands the tournament.

Overall international play seems to have at a minimum 1 degree of stretchiness too much for me.

(USA, Dominican, Venezuela, Japan)

Cuba too, unless Castro banned the game for some reason.

Is that less competitive compared to say basketball?

Serbia pushed the US to the brink in Olympic basketball quite recently.

There have been six WBC champions—the U.S. has won once.

I think a lot more countries could field a team in basketball. The gap in basketball between US and #2 in baseball was huge. The gap between US in baseball to the 2,3,4 teams today are likely smaller.

I’m not sure the U.S. would really be the favorite to win baseball. Both DR and Japan have great programs with a lot of talent.

You also have Venezuela, Korea, and other LATAM teams of varying quality.

Men generally have a strong instinctive response to what constitutes fair use of violence. Sucker punching, 2 against 1, all this sort of stuff invokes strong feelings. In a sense this might even be worse PR for the police than the Nowak murder. It shows the police as a willing participant in an unfair use of violence. And its an instance of violence that the police didn't even instigate. So they are coming along as a secondary participant after the unfair use of force was observed and are siding against the victim. And its a woman officer that then relies on the mercy of the person she is participating in unfairly victimizing.

The left was ultimately correct. ACAB. There's no sense in ever subjecting yourself or anyone you care about to the whims of these lunatics.

The one thing that will come of this, as is the trend with all this stuff, is an increased harshness in society. Brutality of violence goes up. People stop seeing the human behind the eyes. Every instance like this chips away at the moral code of conduct in society. The next time there are riots there will be more people closer to the edge of throwing a bigger rock with more intent to cause serious harm.

The left was ultimately correct. ACAB.

The left was ultimately wrong because the first A stands for "All". Not all cops are bastards: some of them are some of them are not. The way to increase good behavior is to incentivize it, which can't be done if you just throw universal qualifiers "all" or "none" and then make demands based on these assumptions. We should not de-fund all police, we should de-fund corrupt police and replace them with better ones. We should have body cams and impartial audits and clear rules for how they should behave and then give them immunity if and only if they followed the rules, and not give them immunity when they don't.

But yeah, I mostly agree with your conclusions. If you live in an anarcho-tyranny where the police are more likely to side with criminals than victims, then ordinary people will be incentivized to form and join gangs for mutual protection and avoid police intervention. First and foremost people want to be safe, and once they realize the system isn't doing that they're going to create alternatives.

I don’t think the left views cops as bastards because police mistreat the left. Instead, it is hatred of hierarchies. Thus, ACAB because cops are part of the hierarchy.

In contrast, the right can view cops as an instrument.

"The Left" views cops as bastards because criminals and thieves are their cops (they policing Injustice and enforcing Reparations).

If I were the Left I'd be demonizing the social forces that oppose their cops. Thus, the actual cops are one of the Left's most legible enemies (and why countries where state force is weaker keep their authorities masked, including the agency of the US charged with deporting the Left's cops).

Way too much generalizing.

"My enemies want bad things and hate good things" is a fat raspberry, not a coherent or accurate description of everyone on "the Left."

It's a hatred of being "undeservedly" inferior on the hierarchy. Most leftists mad that ACAB would be far worse with any crumb of power they ever got ahold of.

If you live in an anarcho-tyranny where the police are more likely to side with criminals than victims, then ordinary people will be incentivized to form and join gangs for mutual protection and avoid police intervention.

Except that ordinary people have been conditioned over the centuries to just not DO that. They'll keep going to the police even when it's futile or counterproductive, and they'll be horrified if any of their fellows attempts to start a gang.

Is there another 90% of the video that everyone else is watching to understand what happened here?

I think most people are just reacting to the social-media clips, but https://youtube.com/watch?v=9t8qVtCm3Js&t=320s is the original video of the incident. (The video is a compilation of various street fights in Birmingham; this particular incident starts at about 5:20 and continues for about four minutes.)

I watched like 15 mins of this video. I think this video is very instructive in teaching people just why I dislike the lower classes. People should watch this and see if they are not immediately revulsed themselves by what they see across many different scenes and different groups of these "nightlife enjoyers"; it's not something particular to any one individual or small group; it's all pervasive amongst this class of people.

Still think white dude in OP's comment was unjustifiably arrested.

I watched like 15 mins of this video. I think this video is very instructive in teaching people just why I dislike the lower classes. People should watch this and see if they are not immediately revulsed themselves by what they see across many different scenes and different groups of these "nightlife enjoyers"; it's not something particular to any one individual or small group; it's all pervasive amongst this class of people.

It feels, at times, like observing a different species.

Yes, exactly! I feel 100% like you just say. Almost like one of those documentaries where you get to observe the bong chav in its native habitat. It's all fun and games as long as we observe the No. 1 cardinal rule which is to never interfere and let nature take its course.

Is there an element of convenience here?

It's much easier to arrest the one guy (who's, let's be real, more likely to respect police authority) than the three guys who'll go all tribal. It still has the effect of ending the altercation. The three guys will process cop and guy= white, two us = black, three, therefore, attack

I think that's behind a lot of two-tier policing; not hating white people, but enforcing the laws that are easy to enforce on the people who will capitulate.

That’s even worse. Sorry we imported a bunch of third world people who commit violence at higher rates. Besides having to live with that, we will arrest you when they attack you because it’s much easier to arrest you who won’t resist too much whereas they might heavily resist.

How is this not waging the culture war? Possibly I have misunderstood the ethos of this weekly thread.

  1. Third world people do in fact commit crimes at higher rates compared to natives. Do you disagree?

  2. Two tier policing in the UK has been noted for awhile. This is yet another example.

Do you disagree?

Your blanket generalization of "third world people" is the kind of vague wording that could mean not quite anything, but is loaded and not in the spirit of "speaking clearly, saying what you mean." The term "natives" as well, though perhaps this is a code word for white Britons. Your post to me seemed to be a throwaway bitter, we-all-know-what-we-mean response of the type I used to see on reddit, rather than the type of meaningful contribution you are capable of (even if you were to make the same points) and I would like to think is the distinctive quality of this site.

It seems a valid observation of the kind of dynamics this will inevitably introduce.

Don't forget to click the report button.

I agree this is waging the culture war.

You recently said something along the lines of “I like the west except its people”

Some are more equal than others, around here.

Yes, that's true. There's much I like about the west. For example the institutions are great in theory but the people around them lead to them rotting and withering from inside.

Singapore for instance basically copied British Insitutitons on Independence and has done really really well over the last 70 years while the UK has just declined. The institutions are the same in both places, the only difference is the people, and that's where the divergence in fortunes comes from.

I was just stating a fact, not trying to wage culture war.

  • -17

The institutions are the same in both places, the only difference is the people

Are they really tho? Do they have the same tax rate?

Would the Singaporean institutions allow the grooming gangs that developed in the UK in the last few decades? Or a Jimmy Saville celebrity character to blatantly abuse a bunch of kids? I see Singaporeans can get jail time for hate tweets as well.
Jail for man who posed as 'SharonLiew86' to send racially offensive tweets

Is it really just a people difference? Would singaporean institutions react in exactly the same way if they were faced with the same influx of immigrants that are prone to grooming vulnerable teenage girls? Or they wouldn't because Singaporean cops are more efficient enforcers of the institutions' spirit?

Isn't selecting people that can make the institutions work also part of an institution? The Catholic Church is not just the Bible and the rules for how things are organized, it's also selecting men that will take chastity vows to be priest. Without that rule, the institution would look different.

Now, if the Singaporean institutions are the same as the British ones, are they also selecting for cops that will turn a blind eye to grooming gangs or will cover them up in the name of racial harmony?

What is it you don't like about western people?

To wit, this is another video by the same channel that recorded the arrest OP is talking about; pick a random start point and watch this for a collage of how these sorts of people behave: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XOWLnLNWKAw

And now realize that I, a well adjusted, highly productive member of society gets taxed close to 50% to subsidize these people so they can continue to behave in the way they do right now. Any reasonable person would develop a dislike.

This is just about the lower classes, but other justifiable reasons also exist for those above these people on the social stratum.

More comments

Explain how “I hate western people” isn’t waging the cultural war if my claim that third worlders commit crime at higher rates / police fear to arrest them is waging the culture war?

He 'hates western people' does not imply 'he loves Africans'- my read of him is that he prefers brahmins, han, other orientals to whites.

More comments

I didn't out and about start harping on about that from nowhere. Someone accused me of hating the west first and I just corrected the record. I like many many aspects of the west, lets be clear here.

More comments

I didn't say it was good. I was citing an example of anarcho-tyranny.

This may offer a less malicious explanation for the behavior, but it doesn't really deny the problem. In fact, it makes the problem more intractable, since they will never admit to this explanation. It also incentivizes even more tribalistic behavior to dissuade law enforcement actions. If the purpose of the police is to manage relations between ethnic groups to prevent large scale public disorder and inter-ethnic conflict, then they cannot also treat people as individuals before the law. Every law enforcement action must be first evaluated by the likelihood of it undermining "community relations", and so the ethnicities of the people involved should be at the forefront when deciding when and how to enforce the law. Because whites have lower levels of ethnic solidarity, the trade-off will almost always be to target the whites. This makes a lot of good sense given the new priority to manage ethnic conflicts. The question is how stable this strategy is longer term.

Presumably, these concerns are also driving the abolishment of juries. It allows judges to concern themselves not with individual actions but rather balancing competing ethnic resentments to maintain public order.

Quietly, the entire tradition of British law is being repealed and replaced by merely changing "guidance" documents.

The question is how stable this strategy is longer term

Very stable, because us WEIRD types are hardwired to keep taking it — we are genetic defectives in whom the basic human capacity for tribalism has been utterly crippled. This is yet another example of how you need a certain level of collective identity to stand against other groups and not end up preyed upon. We lack it, and since it's in our DNA to lack it, it can't be fixed.

Thus, we're doomed. We'll be preyed upon by more tribal peoples worse and worse, have more resources taken, beaten down more and more, until we're finally hunted to extinction.

There is no escaping this. It is 100% certain, set in stone — the WEIRD populations of the world are going to go extinct. The only way any of us have even the slightest genetic legacy in future humanity is if they marry into a non-WEIRD culture. There's absolutely nothing else to be done.

We lack it, and since it's in our DNA to lack it, it can't be fixed.

Setting aside the questions of whether WIERD characteristics are genetically heritable, either WEIRD types have lacked it in the past, in which case it is quite adaptive in an extremely tribalistic environment, or WEIRD types (at least, in the United States) still have it today. There's no plausible mechanism by which it would have been bred out of the population in just a few generations without an extraordinarily efficient suppression of breeding (such as genocide) and no such mechanism has been observed.

either WEIRD types have lacked it in the past, in which case it is quite adaptive in an extremely tribalistic environment

What "extremely tribalistic environment" are you thinking of WEIRD European populations having lived in, prior to our current condition?

All of them, pretty much. European populations were literally living in tribes until they were Romanized, Christianized, or feudalized. For some of them that happened pretty late (and of course Romanization, Christianization, and feudalization did not end tribal-based thinking) and a good number of them left those environments to go live in tribalistic environments again – where they did extremely well for themselves, conquering entire continents.

All of them, pretty much. European populations were literally living in tribes until they were Romanized, Christianized, or feudalized.

Yes, and that's before they became WEIRD. Before manorialism, cousin marriage bans, and all the other elements associated with the Hajnal line bred WEIRD traits into them.

left those environments to go live in tribalistic environments again – where they did extremely well for themselves, conquering entire continents

Because, in the case of the Americas, diseases did most of the work, killing 90% before they ever saw a European. For the rest, it was the raw technological advantage we had, which allowed us to succeed despite our crippling genetic defects. Now that the gap has closed and the rest of the world caught up? We're doomed.

As an example, back when Tyler Oliveira put out "Inside India's Poop-Throwing Festival," Dave "the Distributist" Greene made a comment in one of his video's about Dinesh D'Souza's reaction to the documentary. Greene asked why D'Souza took the documentary personally, acting like it was an attack on him, when he's a Christian who lives on the opposite side of the planet from these 'pagan' Hindus. Greene then mentioned that his ancestors were mostly German, then outlined a scenario where, instead, it was a documentary about a bunch of Pagan Germans throwing cow dung at one another in the Black Forest; and how he wouldn't care, because what's that to do with him? And he'd be promoting it, saying "look at how disgusting these Pagans are" and using it as an example of why Christianity is better. And that he just doesn't understand D'Souza's behavior here…

Which is exactly my point. D'Souza showed the natural human reaction. He saw this as an attack on his tribe. And he feels an attack on his tribe as an attack on himself, not as a matter of abstract reason, not as a cultural norm, but at a deep instinctual level, the kind of deep reaction that is inborn, that cannot be taught. And that Greene doesn't feel such a natural instinct, cannot even understand that instinct, that he finds it laughable, demonstrates exactly the WEIRD genetic defect I'm talking about.

Show me a WEIRD white who has the inborn, instinctive tribalism Dinesh D'Souza displayed. The inborn, instinctive tribalism of the black people protesting the Karmelo Anthony verdict. (In fact, I see plenty of WEIRDs online siding with them.) Tell me how we undo over a thousand years of selection pressure removing the genes for this instinct from us, in just this century (if we even have that long)?

We're not getting that form of instinctive, inborn tribalism back. And without it, extinction is certain. We're doomed.

Yes, and that's before they became WEIRD. Before manorialism, cousin marriage bans, and all the other elements associated with the Hajnal line bred WEIRD traits into them.

Straight-up racism - which as far as I can tell is fairly similar to your idea of tribalism (although I would dispute this is a correct idea) - was (to varying degrees) acceptable in the West until the 1950s, which postdates those things by a bit.

Anyway, you're not presenting any evidence for this claim. Even for cousin marriage, is there any evidence that it makes people genetically predisposed to tribalism? It certainly makes people less smart, which could be associated with a lack of openness to experience...but on balance I'd take the trade-off. My understanding is that the mechanism of cousin marriage making Western Europeans more open we believed to be at least partially cultural, as exogamous marriages (which are not uniquely Western, AIUI) force greater extra-tribal participation.

Because, in the case of the Americas, diseases did most of the work, killing 90% before they ever saw a European.

I am familiar with this, but from what I understand, this had a much larger impact on North America. I recommend that you read up on Cortez.

For the rest, it was the raw technological advantage we had, which allowed us to succeed despite our crippling genetic defects.

Who's "we"? I doubt that you and I are closely related, and I would certainly be surprised if we are from the same tribe. I certainly do not believe that my line had crippling genetic defects. But perhaps we fixed them via admixture.

And that Greene doesn't feel such a natural instinct, cannot even understand that instinct, that he finds it laughable, demonstrates exactly the WEIRD genetic defect I'm talking about.

In my experience whites have this sort of reaction. I strongly suspect that either not all WEIRD types have whatever genetic makeup you are asserting causes this, or (probably more likely) this is somewhat culturally mediated.

Show me a WEIRD white who has the inborn, instinctive tribalism Dinesh D'Souza displayed.

In the United States, plenty of whites, especially in the South and the West, are extremely tribalistic - they would characterize it as patriotism. In other places, even where patriotism is less en vogue, tribalism may be channeled through consumer attachment ("fandom," football). I suspect you merely don't recognize it because you equate tribalism with genetic ethnic characteristics (which is not how tribes themselves viewed tribalism, or at least not exclusively).

To be direct (but hopefully not unkind), I think you are projecting. White/WEIRD types are still plenty tribalistic. I just think you don't see it, because your perspective on what tribalism and ethnicity is and should be is based on, well, the internet, instead of lived experience. That's why you are focused on race, much more than historical tribes were likely to be (as far as I can tell). Because a tribe is based on common behavior, with race being an imperfect proxy for that - you can read up on the research on children, for instance, which (if I am recalling correctly) shows that they prefer people of their own (parent's) race, but more strongly prefer people of their own cultural dress and behavior. Or you can look to the cultural practices of non-WEIRD types, where adopting people of different racial/ethnic backgrounds into the tribe, was a fairly common practice (at least in North America, where I have the most expertise).

It hasn't been bred out; it's been memed out. Earlier waves of immigration to the US were ultimately fairly well integrated. Problem was there were some lessons learned -- that one should never be suspicious of and 'racist' against immigrants -- that weren't so. I suspect such 'racism' (both real racism and objections to parts of the immigrants' cultures) was load-bearing in integrating them. And in protecting the country from them -- it wasn't breeding that resulted in an America-hating Ethiopian anchor baby winning in Colorado. There haven't been enough generations to breed that out (especially since the last group of integrated immigrants themselves wouldn't have had it bred out at all).

I also suspect that the steady decline in the hazards both of the journey and the destination have resulted in each wave of immigrants being successively less "pre-filtered" for what you might call "American temperament" than prior waves.

The British Empire having imposed the iniquity of its privilege upon the native population of this territory, I'm afraid the natives must follow the natural conclusion the rest of the world has already come to regarding this problem and demand independence.

England must free itself from the British yoke and become again a nation instead of an imperial protectorate. Only then can the self determination of English natives be assured. And other nations borne out of such circumstances such as Ireland, India and the United States should aid in this endeavour in the spirit of brotherhood that unites free self determined peoples against the evil of colonization.

It also incentivizes even more tribalistic behavior to dissuade law enforcement actions.

Sounds like a few young, white British boys might ought to take one for the team and do their peers the favor of just absolutely beating the living shit out of some of these lady cops. Not like the fem-wankers have guns.

:(

More effort/commentary, please.

There are perils to committing yourself to nakedly tribalist, oppressive policing, especially when you disarm your officers and keep hiring frail women.

Well, once you've hit a cop ONCE (and you're white) they're already going to put you away forever. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

This kind of hair splitting could apply to any instance of alleged 'hatred' in history. It's only being applied to whites by whites since the alternative makes them more uncomfortable.

It's not like left wingers in Europe try to defend this kind of thing either. They might claim that these are isolated incidents that don't prove immigration is a problem, or that we are lacking context for the situation. But there is no way they would defend the officers here.

It's not like left wingers in Europe try to defend this kind of thing either.

Of course not, that implies they acknowledge it's happening. They're just going to pretend it never happens and everyone who thinks otherwise is a crazy far-right conspiracy theorist. They already know journalists won't report on it, so we can just wait for it to blow over and continue as if it never happened.

It's not like left wingers in Europe try to defend this kind of thing either.

You cam see someone defending them right here, although I don't know if they're a left winger.

That looks more like an attempt at being as charitable as possible. But even through this lens, the officers still look bad. They are clearly not doing their job properly. They end the altercation, yes, but she is also arresting an innocent while letting the criminals run away.

There's really not much excuse for this. There was a verbal confrontation, the white guy made an abortive aggressive move. One of the black guys clobbered him after that (ETA: and another rabbit-punches him after), and while he's still staggering, the cop runs in from out of frame, pushes a bystander woman out of the way, and clobbers him against the gate. At which point he reacts to being clobbered by hitting the cop in the back of the neck, and thereby makes himself a felon (this trick works in the US and conservatives defend it, I might add).

Does anyone know what they were saying at the beginning? "Move, move", but also I think "No more [something]", it might be enlightening to know what the something was.

I think the defense solicitor in front of a jury has a relatively easy job. Here was a guy who was just attacked by a group. He is getting up from that attack and someone rushes him and shoves him into a wall. He instinctively defends himself but stops once when he realizes it was a cop.

Yeah, were I on the jury here I would acquit, and if the law said that I must convict based on the facts we've found I would let the other jury members know about jury nullification (or jury equity as we call it here) and try and convince them all to stick up a middle finger to the law in this particular instance.

Law-n-order conservatives turn their brain off when they find out the defendant hit a cop (or a woman, for that matter). Nothing more matters; the circumstances are irrelevant, in their minds you Don't Hit Cops. Everyone else likely to be on the jury was already against him.

I have some sympathy for cops who have to deal with the George Floyds of the world.

But it isn’t unthinking deference. Sometimes the cops fuck up. Moreover, in the UK it seems like the cops are entirely the enemies of the people.

That's an interpretation. I'm not even remotely convinced that it's correct. And I hope it isn't.

I know conservatives who hate cops (or at least think they’re buffoons). But conservatives who go, “we gotta get this big government under control!” and then lick boots completely bewilder me.

Beat cops in shitty areas are effectively societal janitors. Eventually they adapt to dealing with unpleasant, low-trust people all the time and that colors their interactions with society at large. The only well-adjusted people I know who went into the field did their time in the trenches and then quickly found a specialty that did not involve daily catch and release of fent zombies.

Yep. It's impossible not to change - when every single person you restrain shouts "I can't breath" (and all of them can breath just find) it's nearly impossible to stop listening when people shout that.

This expands into everything.

ACAB, but whose bastards? They're bastards whether they serve the left or the right. The left don't hate UK cops because they are their bastards. In the US, the situation is more mixed depending on where, but cops tend to be more culturally on the right. This is the difference.

Also, in a smaller town the cops are more local. They coach my kids in peewee sports. I know some of them, and more by name. Others will at least recognize my last name. "All cops are bastards" is a bit of a different question when I'm asking "are Matt and Justin bastards?" Maybe. But they don't seem particularly more inclined to bastardry than I am.

Also, in a smaller town the cops are more local. They coach my kids in peewee sports.

And give you a ticket on the way home from the game. And then you have to see them again and either pretend you don't hate them for ruining your day, or win the victory over yourself and accept that you did wrong.

When they work for yankees who rely on planet of cops robust ticket writing to attempt to balance out their fiscal mismanagement, sure.

More comments

Maybe true in New Jersey, but not true in my experience. I was once speeding down a country road going about 25 over. I passed a cop who turned to follow me, flipped on his lights, pulled alongside my stopped vehicle, rolled down his window, and told me to slow down. He then went on his merry way, without bothering to get out of the vehicle or even ask my name. Another time, some friends and I were stopped by a cop while walking down the street late at night. He asked what we were up to and then asked for IDs. When he got to the second person’s driver’s license, he recognized the last name, asked who her dad was, and then they spent a couple of minutes shooting the breeze before he left. He didn’t worry about the rest of the IDs. Small town cops are also usually a lot more forgiving about underage drinking and other minor infractions. Sure, they’ll break up the party, but they’re not going to get anyone in legal trouble unless they really have to.

I've actually never had that experience. The one time I was viciously fucked over by a police department, it was up north, outside a very Blue college town.

The few other run-ins were either resolved with some humanizing small talk (including a different one at the college town, in which I was a huge prick), or straight up Good Old Boy favoritism (which is basically all of my small town encounters).

I can't imagine this amounts to much. I've done some punching of skinny shitters who think they are big ala dude who gets punched, I've likewise done some punching of dudes who think they are hard and love to ge their shoes stepped on and then start swinging like the other dude.

They are all different flavors of trash, and i don't care what happens to any of them.

I'd wanna hear what they were saying before deciding who deserves to feel the long dick of the law, especially in a country other than the US where there aren't guns everywhere so fist fights are more fun.

In the video, a lone man is being harassed by a group of foreigners, and they knock him to the ground and hit him.

Before passing judgment I would want to see what led up to the confrontation. Is there a more complete video available?

Not really; the original video seems to be from a guy who was wandering around filming a bunch of street fights and arrests, and he was focused on a different arrest until roughly the start of the social-media clip.

You can hear someone yelling something like "Move away!", but it's not clear how the confrontation started.

The video also evokes Novak where police arrested the murder victim allegedly for racism while the murderer stood right there. The police actions there may have contributed to Novak’s death.

If the only way to have a multi cultural society is for the white native population to be second class citizens then why would you expect whites to want multi cultural societies?

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