site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4148 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.

Privilege discourse always seemed exactly backwards to me. If you have two people with the same exact nature, one white and one black, who is privileged in post-1970s America? Black. Socially, they get the enormous privilege of “having overcome”, of “having been the victim”, of being a kind of token of justice, which are very advantageous social myths. Because expectations are lower for them in an unconscious way, they get the privilege of having their work more socially reinforced and teachers will be more lenient. There is also the stereotype of their being more mirthful and cool, and even the stereotype of aggression is beneficial in most social scenarios of note. Education would boost the black person, while in the justice system black jurors discriminate against white offenders and white jurors do not discriminate against black offenders.

And if privilege discourse relies on the assumption that a person is victimized when others of their race are victimized, then surely it’s also the case that people should be lauded when others of their race do something great, like end world slavery, and a person is at fault when others of their race do something bad, like be very murderous. In any case this is a very old topic, but it’s still remarkable how baseless it was; in my mind, not merely untrue, but exactly opposite of the truth. Whites reduced the sum total oppression of blacks to an infinite degree!

It’s probably correct to see the whole phenomenon as based more on conditioning, eg “if I associate X with bad stories, over time people will hate X, and the phenomenon will continue on its own”. Just an op.

Privilege discourse always seemed exactly backwards to me. If you have two people with the same exact nature, one white and one black, who is privileged in post-1970s America?

Why would you assume the same exact nature and circumstances for what is clearly a judgment on a group's standing?

Black. Socially, they get the enormous privilege of “having overcome”, of “having been the victim”, of being a kind of token of justice, which are very advantageous social myths.

So you would rather be the retarded kid who gets points for the touchdown because of all he's overcome rather than just being the good football player? A beneficiary of other people's charity so they can feel good about themselves and look down on their fellows?

You don't see how this is humiliating?

I don’t know why but i read retarded kid as retard king. Couldn’t stop laughing

Privilege discourse always seemed exactly backwards to me. If you have two people with the same exact nature, one white and one black, who is privileged in post-1970s America?

Why would you assume the same exact nature and circumstances for what is clearly a judgment on a group's standing?

Privilege isn't a judgment on a group's standing, though. It's about the standing of an individual relative to another individual when, all else being equal, the only differences between the 2 are some particular characteristic in the approved list such as race, sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity, immigration status, etc. We know this, because policies that are meant to counteract the differences in privilege of people who are different in, e.g. sex, discriminate against individuals on the basis of that individual's sex, not on the basis of the specific privileges/lack-thereof that that individual actually, truly did encounter, that are downstream of that individual's sex.

If privileges truly were judgments on groups rather than on individuals, the people who are the strongest proponents of policies to counter the differences in privilege would be the strongest opponents of any policies that discriminate individuals on the basis of the privilege-level of the group they belong into, because that would be a gross perversion of their ideology that also makes their ideology look uglier to others. But that doesn't really happen.

Why would you assume the same exact nature and circumstances for what is clearly a judgment on a group's standing?

The underlying moral claim of the racial progressive is not merely that a group average is worse and that this worse result is a travesty (this would be justice, it would be a group getting what they deserve). The racial progressive believes that there are blacks with the same nature as whites, and that if you tracked a white and black with the same “skill points” (simplifying) that the black would have a worse outcome. This is opposite of the reality. And they additionally believe that the low skill points blacks currently possess are an artifact of past moral transgressions by whites, transgressions which need reparation, while they ignore the past moral benevolence of whites to blacks, like lifting them out of a maximally oppressive environment in Africa and teaching them to read and so forth.

So you would rather be the retarded kid who gets points for the touchdown because of all he's overcome rather than just being the good football player

But the black is not seen as the retarded kid. There is a very important distinction to be made here. The black is seen as a secret genius who has been thwarted by evil school officials, a Will type character from Good Will Hunting (I imagine this is not really the protagonist’s name, I won’t google it). That an average IQ Black can perform averagely is seen as proof of their superiority, because their oppressive history would make any man perform worse. This is what they believe. A retarded kid is retarded, they are innately dumb and thus of low value. The black is actually valuable but has been unjustly attacked; he is all the more worthy of our admiration because of this; any low performance is simply the relic of white ppls’ original sin, for which we must be the constant penitent (in the extreme manifestations).

A beneficiary of other people's charity so they can feel good

Praise and compassion feel good to receive. The black gets more praise and more compassion from, say, a boss who is very progressive. They also get more respect because of the ambient stereotypes (strong), and are seen as more cool because of the stereotype (eg dancing). These are all good social dynamics to be on the receiving end of; the praise socially-reinforces your good behacior, and the compassion increases a sense of belonging. These are advantages. The studies show that blacks are more narcissistic so it’s possible they do not, on average, recognize their myriad “unjust” blessings due to the ignorance of progressives (imo).

We can consider a parallel. If I never had a piano teacher because of evil oppressive monsters who hate me, and when I go to my first lesson my teacher is amazed at how well I can play, how would I feel? Quite great, actually. I will be a lot more confident and happy in my playing. I would be very reinforced. The other students would look upon my state when some envy, that I am the Harry Potter of the Pianoverse.

You don't see how this is humiliating?

Professional beggars and scroungers do not feel their way of life as humiliating, they see themselves as smart and clever and see dumb mugs who believe their sob stories with the deepest contempt. Ofc, the professionals are in the game for more concrete gains than some football game points.

And evidently even professionals who are proud to perform well aren't ashamed to do very fake and gay shit such as diving to scrounge up some extra points, if the game allows it.

The retarded kid won't be humiliated, because he's too retarded to get it. He gets his points, it makes him happy, and the actually good players go find something else to do. Further, in real life, those points tend to be quite valuable, which can cover up for a lot of humiliation. Yeah, maybe the kid who made it into Harvard on his skin color instead of his ability is a little embarrassed... but at the end of the day he's at Harvard and whitey Poindexter isn't.

If I have to pick between being two equally good or retarded kids, but one gets charity while the other gets shut down and diminished for being a part of the group who "has it good enough as is", I'd rather be in the former group.

It's not as simple as charity, though: if it were just a matter of material goods, yeah, it's a no brainer.

But the trade is much more pernicious. It means you grow up in a community that has had all sense of real agency ripped from it. It means that your (real) successes will be judged negatively. It means your children will be told from every angle that they are a victim and must view themselves that way.

Concretely, would you like to quintuple your chances of getting into Harvard, at the expense of having everyone in your family and friend group pick up the pathologies of black culture?

Would I rather be told that I'm worse off than I can feel I am, or told than I'm better off? The former.

Things aren't equal and they're not going to be equal. The kids who get affirmative action, for example, are not equally skilled as the kids who don't or they wouldn't need it. Nor are their group outcomes the same.

I do not believe you can't imagine two kids who are equally good yet are of different races. I'm not talking about groups.

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