site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   3690 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 27, 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.

Privilege Theory

A Privilege is an unearned advantage according to this theory, and if you are born into a position of privilege, you dont know what its like to live without it. I think this idea has many flaws, but I'll let the author go more indepth:

The theory of privilege saying that being born a certain way makes certain outcomes more likely still appears to be a fair observation. So maybe the problem with this theory isn't the theory itself, but rather the way in which it is often applied.

Privilege is often not approached abstractly, but rather concretely. The notion that success is more likely with privilege is bastardized into the assumption that success requires privilege.

What could possibly go wrong when that assumption is made?

David Webb interviews Areva Martin:

I've chosen across different parts of the media world, done the work so that I'm qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.

Well, you know, that's a whole nother long conversation about white privilege—the things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don't have the privilege of.

How do I have the great privilege of white privilege, David?

By virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege.

Whole long conversation. I don't have time.

Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped. I'm Black.

Okay then, I—

You went to white privilege. This is the falsehood in this. You went immediately with an assumption.

So who gives you the wrong information?

...the wrong information that I'm white, to come on my radio show? What do you think about that for a minute?

What did she say? Her team.

What was the bad information they gave her?

The wrong information.

So what does that mean?

Well, that's my question. How do you give someone the wrong information about my skin color during this interview?

Areva Martin used the abstract theory of privilege as the basis for a concrete assumption about David Webb.

Martin's argument was that Webb could not have possibly accomplished all of the things that he had accomplished if he was Black.

Well, we know that's not true because David Webb is Black.

So what was wrong with Martin's argument?

Simply put, her argument took the theory of privilege out of the abstract and applied it improperly by making an assumption about an individual.

The theory of privilege states that certain characteristics make certain outcomes more probable. It does not state that certain outcomes are guaranteed.

Thus, this theory should not be used to make concrete predictions.

Unfortunately, that's often how it is.

I can't be the only one who dislikes the accusatory structure of Privilege to begin with? It kind of leads to the concrete argument inherently. Privilege is applied to the group that, by definition, lacks the disadvantage. Wouldn't a more productive conversation be around how to fix the disadvantages of others? If I say someone has Male Privilege, what is that meant to do? I cant say I've ever seen this used very productively. It just feels more like a bludgeoning fist than a helping hand.

Perhaps another argument could be that those with this advantage have an obligation to help others without it, but Its not like a lack of disadvantage is the same as being in a position to do anything, and its not automatically the case that the disadvantage have no power either. Maybe those with wealth privilege could give money to the poor, but that might not affect much if the reasons someone is poor is structural/government policy reasons, or due to their own personal failings. And some one who is poor could very well change their circumstances to become middle class if they work hard and stay in school. Yes this obviously has its limits, but it'll still put you in a better spot than doing nothing. Same with thing with male privilege: I can't stop other men from raping women and using money & power to get away with it unless I possessed a similar level of wealth and power. The fact that I am less likely to experience rape myself doesn't change this idea.

Its a frustrating conversation to have, because it pivots and assigns blame and responsibility to the "Privileged" group, instead putting focus on how to fix the issues of the less fortunate. It gives me the gist that many of these folk are just looking to shit on people and shut them up, rather than actually solve any real problems.

The accusatory attitude towards privledge seems to me like the crabs in a bucket mentality, jealousy, or other similar ressentiment towards towards the more powerful. I think this is what matters, as it gives you us a model for understanding the position. If we merely listen to the position explaining itself, we'll find that it breaks down completely under scrutiny. I could rip the entire concept apart with clever arguments (let me know if anyone wants to read that), but at this point it feels like we're just pointing out the obvious and agreeing with one another as a way of venting.

A better question is, will anyone here defend the idea of privilege being used like this? As you point out, it's used as a way to bring down the successful rather than as a way to help those who are unsuccessful. If you look more closely, this is a common psychological theme of losers (underprivileged, needy, use any synonym). They hate the rich but do not love the poor. They want to see evil people punished, but they don't check what happened to the victims. Psychologically speaking, hatred of X is distinct from the love of (opposite of X).

Of course the disadvantaged aren't without power. They're actually the most powerful when you consider the strength in numbers. By definition, being disadvantaged has become an advantageous position, meaning that the powerless are powerful. Think about it - if white men are being harassed, how are they privledged? There's no force more difficult to oppose than public opinion.

The so-called fight for the good (especially of a class or category of people) is just a fight for power. Femininsm is a fight for power. Communism is a fight for power. Maybe this comment too is just an attempt to elevate myself. I'd argue that it's not, though, since my will to power is lacking. Anyway, psychology is not rocket science, our social norms just prevents a clear understanding of human nature from becoming common knowledge.

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