site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   10857 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 17, 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.

This is NOT true and a necessity for western civilization to exists is to govern in this way:

“ That does not make it acceptable to enslave, discriminate, oppress, or demean a race of people - all people deserve a baseline of dignity and respect”

Pragmatically you have to do this. At an international level for instance you can’t give out tourist visas to a Somalian and a Norwegian at the same rate or demographic change would occur.

Pragmatically you have to do this. At an international level for instance you can’t give out tourist visas to a Somalian and a Norwegian at the same rate or demographic change would occur.

Colorblindness doesn't require that. You can take a standard for visas that captures what you care about without any reference to race. Only when your policy receives complaints about disparate impact you might need to do invoke HBD.

Ugh. In theory yes. In practice NOT within budget or American way of life. Yes you can IQ test everyone entering America and put ankle bracelets/police state to make sure people aren’t pregnant or overstay visas.

Or you could just give all whites people visas and just do zero mitigation. Mitigation is expensive.

Or you could just give visas to Norwegians freely but scrutinize Somalians, while agnostic to typical somalian skin color.

Use anything from wealth to culture to average IQ (again race agnostic) to previously observed behavior of tourists of the origin country to justify this.

This would be the racial discrimination you wanted to avoid. Scrutinizing Somalians but giving visas easily to Norwegians.

I’m not sure what cheap test you want to use that would separate the two groups other than explicit racism.

The big advantage of racism is it’s cheap and effective and doing the thing you want it to do.

No, its discrimination by nationality. And visas applications being treated differently by country of origin is not unreasonable.

It also catches economic and cultural factors, and is easier to administer than race.

That’s not exactly different than racism since most countries are a single race.

And then a country like Brazil you would also want to give a lot of visas to Europeans and not ADOS. And then a country like Ukraine with low gdp we probably still give a lot of visas too.

Nationality and race are very close to synonyms in a lot of situations. This just feels like wordcelling to me.

Tourist visas would not be a problem if the laws were enforced to ensure overstaying the visa would be inadvisable.

For immigration, again, you can better target what you want without having to use race (or nationality) as a proxy.

“If the laws were enforced”

Mitigation is not free. You either need to (1) something like ankle monitor every tourists or (2) punish severely anyone caught like go to gitmo for 3 years for overstaying a visa. Both are culturally wrong in the US and both would have significant dollar costs.

I am aware mitigation is not free. Though tourist money can sure help offset some of those costs - so there is a benefit and risk to tourism.

I'd rather not get into the nitty gritty of policies as there can be arguments regarding how to implement or how sufficient they would be. At the end of the day, changing the culture such that a non-insignificant portion of Americans want open borders and feel illegal immigrants have every right to be in the US is the most important thing, because then we can work on the law enforcement aspect and deterrence.

Saying mitigation is not free after arguing that you can just target better is just forgetting to mention the giant negative with your proposal.

Racism is cheap and effective and doesn’t cross any traditional American taboos on freedom.

Even the NYT implicitly understands the racism works, which is why when they want to run articles against Trump immigration policies they pick articles about an Argentinian or Russian being deported who cause no issues. Because having rules to mitigate negatives of global travel end up catching a few people breaking rules that are perfectly fine being here.

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