site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   14261 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 20, 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.

he hoped everyone would interbreed and then we'd all be brown.

Such a weird thing to fetishize, as if brown people aren't racist against each other and everyone else. Ask a Mexican about Guatemalans, FFS.

If we're going to have racism, it should at least be refined competitive racism based on nation and beer preferences and clothing, not casual "darker skin bad" racism.

Do you know of even one person in the world who is racist strictly on skin tone? Nobody hates melanin, man.

There's a reason the South Koreans have the best sunscreen tech in the world and to be very clear that reason is racism / colorism

Congratulations to your big beautiful bubble shielding you from the global majority.

Prejudice due to skin color alone is normal in most of the world, especially in dark complexioned countries where no one heard about bell curves.

Search for "colorism" and be enlightened/horrified.

There is a reason why there is, in the third world, huge market for various skin whitening substances, no matter how dubious.

Not strictly on skin tone, but it is a marker for other factors, and it is making things all too easy for aspiring racists. No one cares to learn the subtle class markers like wearing your hat the wrong way or peasant pronunciation of certain vowels when you can just look at their face and instantly determine they are likely to be of a lower socio-cultural-intellectual-spiritual-economical class.

Then let me tell you a little tale about context. Far up north, where the trains don't run and the law is weak, live my in-laws. Dying small town, full of white and native trash. In that town, the only black people are the Jamaican doctors who are the only MDs who will work in a town like that. They're the richest and brightest people in town. So super-black Jamaicans are top of the SES heirarchy, but the rare less-black guy from downstate is considered a degen and likely thief. Nobody has any trouble telling them apart.

I am entirely unsurprised that small town people can remember the few exceptions to the rule.

If there's exceptions, it isn't "darker skin bad". This is the point.

If there's exceptions it means the rule exists. As you yourself stated, the black guys that do not belong to the well-known exception are not trusted.

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