site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24467 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The UK Home Office just published a guide for asylum seekers on... how not to rape women.

Some extracts from this 9-page document:

Women can work and earn their own money, study and go to school or university, travel freely, choose who they marry, or choose not to marry, make their own decisions about their lives

Women do not need permission from a husband, father, brother or any other man to do any of these things.

If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape.

Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.

You are expected to never try to have sex with someone who is asleep, drunk, or unable to consent clearly

The legal age of consent in the UK is 16. This means that anyone under the age of 16 is considered a child and cannot legally agree to have sex.

What could happen if you do not follow those rules?

Treating someone unfairly because of their gender can have serious consequences. If your behaviour is controlling or threatening, it may also be treated as domestic abuse, which is a crime. You could get into trouble with the police, lose your accommodation and support, and it could affect your asylum claim. There is more information about domestic abuse in the next section.

Domestic abuse is a serious crime in the UK. If you do any of the behaviours in the list, you could be arrested and go to prison, lose your accommodation and support, and it could affect your asylum claim.

It follows several high profile cases in which migrants convicted of sexual offences in the UK claimed in court to not understand the law.

A migrant who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old schoolgirl whilst living at an asylum hotel in Epping was said to have told her that it is normal to marry children “in his country”.

Ethiopian Hadush Kebatu, was sentenced for sexual assault before being deported to Ethiopia.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We expect everyone who comes to the UK to abide by our laws. If they do not, they will face consequences, including the refusal of their asylum claim and removal from the UK.”

Prime Minister Andy Burnham defended the booklet saying the government wanted to make UK law "explicitly clear".

Finland has also been offering classes on "how to behave towards women" since... 2016. The fact that a government department, under UK Labour, produced a 9-page guide on these points, in this register, suggests that those migrant crime statistics are not so trivial after all. Incredible.

In a time where even legal immigration has become THE hot button topic for the right and even parts of the left, shouldn't it logically follow that people who treat the law and age of consent as optional are not blending in with the doctors and engineers if you DON'T want to harden public opinion against immigration? It's like they're not even trying.

Feminists claimed to think that frat boys need this type of condescending propaganda in order to not rape people (I suspect they were lying and understood that the purpose of the propaganda was to humiliate). It was a few current things in the past, but back when Haven Monahan and his dastardly bros was the current thing, "We don't need to teach women to keep themselves safe, we need to teach men not to rape." was the feminist slogan du jour.

This is exactly what I would expect a deep state riddled with feminists to do if the tabloids said that something must be done about rape gangs, regardless of whether or not it is necessary or helpful. (And it definitely isn't helpful).

These migrants understand very well how not to rape women- most of them are not sexual predators within their own families. They simply choose to do it anyways.

most of them are not sexual predators within their own families

Yes, they are

Granted, this is in Pakistan and not UK but I don't think they care to make that distinction

I think they're vastly more prone to incest actually, including by force, including without marriage.

most of them are not sexual predators within their own families.

Tangental, but third worlders in the yookay and in general have wildly different and alien social mores.

The majority of UK pakistani marriages are to their first cousins

They surely target locals, but:

most of them are not sexual predators within their own families

How sure are you of this?

The women in the family are members of the ingroup, not of the outgroup or fargroup.

I’m not disputing that the intent of condescension and humiliation is there but I’d say that the main motivation behind the whole ‘teach men not to rape’ BS from the beginning was to construct a narrative counter to so-called victim-blaming.

Fundamentally this just an Anglo belief and a an assumption that assimilation is possible. The English write down rules and assume reasonable people follow the rules if you tell them what the rules are.

The asylum seekers are starting from a distant culture place. So you need to mitigate their culture by being reasonable and giving them a clear statement of the rule which they will all follow because you told them the rule.

This is entirely culturally within how an Anglo believes the world functions. Problem is I think it’s mistake theory to believe asylum seekers will accept your laws if you just tell them the rule to follow.

You can assimilate people from other cultures, but it requires making them give up their culture. The UK seems unwilling to do this.

Some people you can. The US has never assimilated its black population and it’s likely the bottom half is incapable of assimilation. Some of Europes migrants likely can never assimilate.

The craziest part is out of all countries, UK should be the one who know how to assimilate or at least integrate distinct culture into their own sociaty, afterall, this is how they manage their British Empire and how they managed to have a Prime Minister of Indian descent who looks and feels anthing but British

Orwell pointed out that the English of his time were famous for their xenophobia, which went so far as to refuse to pronounce foreign words correctly.

That's not xenophobia, it's cultural counter-signalling.

Essentially it's conveying contempt of and non-fraternity with the would-be cosmopolitans who announce 'it's pronounced Paree' as if they've discovered the true path to enlightenment and look at you like a clod-hopping peasant if you use the conventional name and pronounciation from your own language. The genuine cosmopolitans already know and actively counter-signal because they don't want to look like prats. The non-travellers don't care.

British empire was historically surprisingly insular, especially when it comes to colonies. In 1841 there were only 0.25% of foreign born people in UK, in 1901 it increased to 1.5% - and vast majority of those were French, German as well as Russian Jews etc. The total African/Indian population of UK could be of around 10,000 people. By the way the same goes the other way around. British ruled with a very small bureaucratic elite, the whole Indian Civil Service never exceeded much beyond 1,000 people. Pre rebellion in 1856, the whole white military in India was around 40,000 people for the population of over 200 million in Raj and even post-rebellion the numbers were never too outrageous - it only doubled. Brits took the divide and conquer tactics very seriously, majority of military as well as administration was actually local population.

It was not until after WW2 and especially after de facto dissolution of the empire that the immigration really picked up pace. It is a very new phenomenon for Britain. I know it looks different with constant propaganda about black people in historical dramas, but it is just that - a new myth for new multicultural UK.

What I found amazing is that, the hands off approach of British colonial management style actually provided a good integration strategy for their colonial subject, the existing elite want to become the British upper class, or at least be associated as such, so they slowly adopted British culture and Britishfy their local culture to suit this need, this then slowly osmose to the lower class and thus change the entire culture, I believe this is how people like Gandhi become respected figure in modern UK, he is the cultural representative of India who know how the British system work, and his action is being seens as acceptable in European Christian cultural standard, unlike many other decolonization movements in africa/asia.

On a side note, I had once read some comment about MLK on why he is such a respected figure in the US, compare to other black American civil rights activist at the time, the author opinion is that MLK's image is a Baptist minister who wears suit, this make him feels more in group to Christian white Anerican at the time. While I agree with this opinion I am not American, please correct me if this is not the case.

hands off approach of British colonial management style

While we're on this topic, may I point to something new and interesting I learnt recently?

The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 was passed by the British Raj that designated entire castes/tribes/communities and their members as habitual criminals.

At the time of Indian independence in 1947, thirteen million people in 127 communities were subject to the legislation. They were subject to compulsory registration and a pass system which limited their movement and where they could reside.

Ancient and medieval literature from the Indian subcontinent have mentions of outlawed tribes. These include the Vedic Aranyaka, epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata, ancient and medieval storytelling of Katha, dramas, and Jataka tales. In these texts, roads, mountain passes, and forest pathways are teemed with robber bands waiting to prey on merchants and travellers. They come from the forests, which are at the periphery of civilisation in Brahmanic cosmology.

We really ought to give the Brits an A+ for cultural integration and their ability to work within the acceptable cultural standards of the colonies!

Given the context of 1871, this is just legislated collective punishment and extended concept of original sin applied to a bloodline

Yeah. The British model arguably thrived on generally not displacing too much of the existing structures of power inside their colonies in populated societies. Find the strongest, most amiable caste or clan who are already doing the merchant/bureaucracy stuff (ideally being lightly oppressed by the existing rule/martial class) and then build a layer on top of them (or ship Indians in if the society in question has nobody sufficiently established). Also the whole Westerners dying horribly of tropical diseases factor meant that actual boots on the ground weren't as common as people typically imagine throughout Asia and Africa.

Always the hilarious imaginings of the Slave Trade with random White People running around with nets in deepest darkest Africa as if that wasn't going to get everybody involved killed instead of just taking advantage of pre-existing Slave trading societies.

Always the hilarious imaginings of the Slave Trade with random White People running around with nets in deepest darkest Africa as if that wasn't going to get everybody involved killed instead of just taking advantage of pre-existing Slave trading societies.

This was actually fixed in the remake of Roots, one rare example of retellings for the modern audience improving something by trying to historicize the section in Africa.

I'd suggest it was a response to a shift in the general audience's view of the slave trade but it was pre-2020 and whatever progress that represented may have gotten wiped.

And because people slowly adopt the culture of elites, local culture start to change to a more British + local mix, dropping cultural practice non acceptable by British, which is what we mean by culture integration and also what most right wing movement in the west currently want, I believe

I mean in Europe, despite all the gloom and doom about the UK, I'd argue that the integration of foreigners has actually gone better than in other states. That's the whole reason people cross the channel.

That's the whole reason people cross the channel.

The UK government will outbid natives to buy migrants free houses.

Foreigners integrating well into the left side of the bell curve is still a massive detriment to the native population. With immigration “wins” like these, who needs losses?

Integration is not synonymous with positive outcomes.

For example, the 'intermarriage' (few of these people are literally marrying) rate of Afro-Caribbeans is extremely high (43%) but they also commit something like 10x as much violent crime. They are integrating into the native underclass, and the native underclass are integrating into them.

The demographics of the small boat migrants suggest they will have both low intermarriage rates and very high crime rates.

I'd argue that the integration of foreigners has actually gone better than in other states.

I don't know how anyone with even the most passing familiarity with the grooming gangs scandal can possibly believe this. If this is what "better" looks like, I'd hate to see the countries that have done worse than the UK, in your book.

I think the primary reason so many "asylum seekers" cross the channel is because they know the UK will provide them with generous state benefits more or less indefinitely, and that they will be able to commit crimes with impunity, only receiving the occasional slap on the wrist.

I don't think it's that complex. I think the primary reasons immigrants choose the UK is because they are familiar with the English language, they have some cultural awareness of Britain that they don't have of, say, Denmark, and those two things have generated a pre-existing community of past immigrants and the associated social infrastructure that they can tap into. Details of state policies are a UK native's lens.

"Let's go to Britain, my cousin can get us a job that pays 10x what we're making here and then we can see Arsenal play at home" versus "Let's go to Britain, the 2004 EU expansion and post-WW2 welfare state means we can slip in undetected and rape schoolgirls while they pay us to do it. Lol."

It's the same way ex-pats choose to go to Spain instead of Slovenia.

Migrants don't need any details of state policies to arrive at "Let's go to Britain, my cousin can get us a job that pays 10x what we're making here and we can rape schoolgirls while they pay us to do it. Lol."

Distribution of state benefits and law enforcement priorities are details of state policy.

That's the whole reason people cross the channel.

I'd say the whole reason is money. Immigrants who actually want to integrate are a pretty rare sight. Even in intra-European migration.

Is "money" really that different between France and the UK? Per capita GDP is not terribly different (UK wins slightly), and I thought living standards were quite similar. But I'll admit I haven't been to either recently.

I assume @ArjinFerman was referring to how many state benefits the modal migrant can expect to receive in the UK vs. France.

Yup, though come to think of it, I'm not sure how much one can expect in either country.

Per capita GDP is not terribly different (UK wins slightly)

I wonder how the two capital cities influence that? I know that in the UK, London is an absurd amount of the entire UK's GDP.

Suggestion: DEI but for people who couldn't sit still in class let alone thrive.

Problem with stacking your government full of talented Hermiones is that they don't seem to get that schooling just doesn't work for everything and everyone. Not everyone is terrified of disappointing teacher.

I've seen some people suggest that what makes a lot of Third World men abuse Western women who're seen as too loose is because of terminal pornbrain. But, honestly, I think they're just contemptuous and/or revert to habit. I don't know how you have access to the Western internet enough to watch porn but not get Western attitudes on this. Seems like quokka cope.

I've seen some people suggest that what makes a lot of Third World men abuse Western women who're seen as too loose is because of terminal pornbrain.

This goes back before internet porn. I was told in Turkey that it was a big problem back when mass tourism first started coming (harassment more than rape, because Turkish police are scary fuckers) that a lot the young men who became tour guides, hotel workers, etc. had been taught by clerics that Western women were all whores who would have sex at the drop of a hat, and of course the young men were really hoping that would be true.

I mean when your point of comparison is the women of your original society, even if the porn exaggerates the difference it's not like a modern Western Woman isn't vastly more likely to put out outside the bounds of marriage and without being paid for it than most of her historical and other-cultural counterparties. Just nowhere near to the degree that the migrants hoped/thought.

I don't know how you have access to the Western internet enough to watch porn but not get Western attitudes on this.

Those are pretty siloed parts of the internet, though. You're not forced to read a collection of Dworkin before accessing the infamous Hub; you're not going to just absorb Westernism by vibe if you already have a culture installed in your brain.

You don't need to read a collection of Dworkin. You just need to know that your hosts don't like it. And that is literally everywhere.

I know someone who raped women in the UK. I hadn't seen him in a lifetime so I don't know what happened to him as he aged but I knew the media diet we grew up on. I simply cannot believe that he didn't get that the freedom Western women were granted also had a corresponding expectation of safety despite them being sluts by local standards, especially since we weren't Wahhabis* - girls didn't veil outside of a mosque in my youth.

Would he have done it at home? Maybe not. You're more restricted when family can monitor you and I suspect that the taboo against alcohol really helps.

For another, as @Bingbong mentions, the one thing the government did try to actually police was threatening or even annoying tourists, who were the gravy train for a poor country. Same reason you would rob a Western store and not a local one: you would get instant mob justice in the second case.

If that's true, a sort of nebbish focus on protocol and telling people they "might" get punished is actively damaging. Because one takeaway from that is that you might find a way to wiggle your way out. The men won't lynch you (in fact, the focus on human rights is an emasculation of the local men) before you can pull any crocodile tears, the police won't beat you or toss you into a hellhole masquerading as a jail. Maybe you slip out.

you're not going to just absorb Westernism by vibe if you already have a culture installed in your brain.

People absorb a lot this way, even things that violate their values. It may be superficial a lot of the time but it happens.

* While we're at it: it doesn't actually follow that, because women are heathen and Muslims are allowed to rape slaves captured in jihad, you can rape random women you run into at a club. That's the contempt showing through, not ignorance.

For another, as @Bingbong mentions, the one thing the government did try to actually police was threatening or even annoying tourists, who were the gravy train for a poor country. Same reason you would rob a Western store and not a local one: you would get instant mob justice in the second case.

Is always hilarious when foreigners go to Bali or whatever, and don't realize that there's a very small bubble where you can get away with certain activities due to the power of foreign tourism bucks and then go back to the USA and 'Yaddayadda Indonesians are so progressive on homophobia since inside my Yoga retreat nobody cared about my boyfriend and I holding hands'

Because the thing they’re on the internet for is porn, and not other things?

These particular men are from cultures where a woman who does not conform to traditional norms and sleeps around has no honor, so raping her does not cause dishonor. In the West they see most local women behaving this way, so when they abuse them, this is the reason, not pornbrain. Online porn just reinforces their belief that Western women are generally even willing to sell their bodies in front of a camera.

I generally agree with your comment, but I would consider a view of a group like "Western women" informed in any meaningful way by online porn to itself be a type of pornbrain, even without porn being the root factor.

It's a case of pattern-matching. They watch online porn and the only women they see in it are infidel Westerners of course.

It reminds me a bit of a clip of this white guy talking to some African rapists (I think in South Africa) where they explain their rape techniques:

https://x.com/sarahsansoni/status/1816144135222595677

What about the consequences of what you're doing on the girl that's raped?

Ya, yah the consequences, we look at that all the time because it happens, she might scream, you know... people might wake up

No I'm not just talking about that, I mean the emotional effect, the physical effect it has on the girl.

Oh yeah, sometimes we know if we rape her, we might wake up tomorrow with HIV, viruses ourselves...

The white guy's visibly glaring at this point, vein about to pop but he remains calm.

Yeah but aren't you hurting another human being?

Oh when you do something like that you don't think about what might happen after, you don't think about the consequences, you just think about what is happening now

These people are a different model of human, there are the high performance peoples that make advanced civilizations and then there are the low-performance peoples who don't think about the consequences. They can but they don't, it doesn't come naturally to them, not really their thing. More habitual pattern-followers than abstract reasoners.

I don't believe that the neurotic Hermione type or the autistic programmer paralyzed and terrified at the thought of making a faux pas with a woman are of the same classification as these very laidback, very casual guys. Different breeds have different types and ratios.

Edit: there's this cavernous gulf in understanding throughout the whole conversation, where it's clear that the white guy is talking about something totally different to the black guys, they don't understand at all that he's referring to the internal emotions of the girl rather than immediate physical reactions like screaming. The rapists are at most abstractly aware about hurting her, if prompted - but they wouldn't let it affect their actions, like how they know about HIV but don't refrain from rape because of that. Whereas in the West there are many who are hyperaware of other's opinions of them - drought vs flood.

I think you're overlooking how quickly just become inured to their immediate circumstances. I'm sure the guys running slave markets, both today and in history, were largely 'regular guys' who made stupid jokes and fucked around a lot. I've worked in industries where I've done things that are fairly questionable morally (Mostly gambling) and like within two weeks you just get used to a lot of stuff.

I shill it a lot but the documentary Act of Killing is probably one of the best, simply since it pushes this reality. Literal mass murderers who are just wandering around as kinda-awkward uncles in Indonesian society now. https://youtube.com/watch?v=QKoP2PnU60s

Sure, there were plenty of soldiers who go around and massacre or torture civilians for grain or just out of racial/religious hatred. And they might say 'well I don't care, she was Jewish/Palestinian/Slavic/White/Black/Catholic so who cares' or 'we need to eat and it's these peasants or me and my friends'. Some proportion of sadists emerge from any population.

But these guys are different, they weren't conceptualizing any of that justification or discriminating between people whom it's unacceptable to target and those who it is. There's no tribal difference, no religious difference (or at least they don't mention it), they just predate. In your video it's political violence, anti-communist terror or calculated greed 'oh the communists didn't want to watch American films, so we gangsters made less money.'

I realize that I wasn't so clear in that paragraph about what I was saying. I think it's more helpful to watch the video and then it's more visible, something in the expression and miscomprehension in their voices distinguishes it. They don't try to justify what they're doing.

I'm sure the guys running slave markets, both today and in history, were largely 'regular guys' who made stupid jokes and fucked around a lot.

There's that classic medieval joke from the one Pope at a slave market, after all...

I don't believe that the neurotic Hermione type or the autistic programmer paralyzed and terrified at the thought of making a faux pas with a woman are of the same classification as these very laidback, very casual guys.

I don't either, but you supplied two characteristics ("neurotic" and "autistic") and a whole general category of person ("rapist") that suffice to explain a whole lot of difference before we start talking about 'breeds.' And your point isn't even demonstrated by the evidence you presented: these guys are perfectly capable of thinking of consequences -- they can perfectly well conceive of the potential negative consequences to themselves, including "people might catch us" and "we might get HIV."

You're interpreting a deflection under interrogation ("you don't think about what might happen after, you don't think about the consequences") as though it overwrites the existing discussion of self-interested consequentialism, a test which I doubt many white people would pass. That's a pretty startling level of credulity towards the statements of a literal gang rapist; you're arguing he's a habitual pattern-follower incapable of abstract reasoning, but you take his statements about his own psychological state at face value? I can find you a thousand white guys with the same mindset, it's just that they're in prison or dead in a ditch. You're simply illustrating that habitual gang-rapists aren't willing to think about the consequences to their victims, which is not an original insight.

I'm not even a racial progressive and I oppose third world immigration, it's just that your takeaway here makes no sense.

I don't believe that the neurotic Hermione type or the autistic programmer paralyzed and terrified at the thought of making a faux pas with a woman are of the same classification as these very laidback, very casual guys. Different breeds have different types and ratios.

How many neurotic Hermione types are there in South Africa vs East Anglia or Massachussets? Different types and ratios.

And your point isn't even demonstrated by the evidence you presented: these guys are perfectly capable of thinking of consequences

then there are the low-performance peoples who don't think about the consequences. They can but they don't, it doesn't come naturally to them, not really their thing.

Yeah, they can think about consequences. In the same way as the crazy guy who throws women off the subway or stabs them on camera on the train goes for weak looking women, not enormous footballer types. He's capable of understanding consequences when it would directly affect his interests, sometimes. But not other times when its more indirect and especially if its not his interests that are immediately affected.

I can find you a thousand white guys with the same mindset, it's just that they're in prison or dead in a ditch.

Ratios, ratios... Could you find me 150 million such white guys? 27.6% of south african men have admitted to raping a woman in an anonymous survey, per a study. No wonder they're not in prison if it's such a large chunk of the population.

https://www.documentwomen.com/27-6-of-south-african-men-aged-18-49-have-raped-a-woman-study-shows

Furthermore, how many gang-rapists just casually talk about it with some random guy they don't know well, on camera? They brought up the topic in the conversation, you can see at the start of the video. They were talking about something else (perhaps other crimes they commit) and then he's explaining and starts mentioning that he does some rape and then the white guy pivots the conversation. Not merely is the rapist unwilling to think about the consequences of raping a girl in regards to her interests he barely even considers any risks in talking to this stranger about it!

That's very unusual behaviour and proof of a dissimilar mindset. Why would he lie about his state of mind when he's so eager to give details on incredibly incriminating crimes?

I'm not actually making the argument here that populations don't differ, and I'm certainly not making the argument that South African men are identical in temperament and disposition to British men. We don't even need to talk about those things to conclude that your comment was, at best, very, very silly. 100% of South Africans could be in a constant state of raping and your comment would still not make sense.

I'm actually making a much more narrow argument: you presented a clip as evidence that the South African men shown do not naturally think about consequences, when in fact the clip is saturated with thinking about forward-looking and non-immediate consequences, like possible punishment or an STD infection.

What it also has, and the part from which you extracted the "not naturally thinking about consequences" idea, is a statement, under repeated pressure to relate to the position of a victim from an obviously-angry foreign journalist, that when you rape someone you don't think about the consequences. I mean, yeah? "I wasn't thinking" is the thing that people the world over say when they get caught with their hand bloodied in the cookie jar; that certainly doesn't make it true.

You claim that he has no reason to lie, because of course he's already spilling the beans on his gang rape, but you've conveniently forgotten the most obvious and immediate person a violent criminal would want to mislead as to his motivations and capacity for choosing another way: himself. I can't read his mind, but neither can you, and since you made the claim that this reveals something fundamental about his cognitive architecture, you're the one for whom mind reading makes the least sense.

We could talk about the consequences of gabbing about gang rape to a foreign journalist all day, but anyone who's ever thought about their own misdeeds can well understand that the consequences of admitting to yourself that you've done something wrong in a way that directly harmed another human being are more frightful than a hundred lashings. Something, anything, to stop from believing oneself to be the antagonist in someone else's life story. You're accusing him of being a different model of human, but self-protective cognitive biases and self-deception are part of the basic trim package across the whole model lineup.

And his willingness to talk about his gang rape to a foreign journalist has an immediately-accessible and quite evident sociocultural explanation that comes before any need to discuss race at all. In fact you name it, yourself! You wrote:

No wonder they're not in prison if it's such a large chunk of the population.

But what's funny to me about this is that you've put the cart before the proverbial horse here, and you've assumed the causation flows from "South African men rape a lot" to "South African men aren't in prison." Is it possible that, you know, they're doing all this raping because South Africa doesn't prosecute them for it? And, moreover, is it possible that both the high rate of rape and the lack of effective prosecution of rape could be downstream from predominant sociocultural attitudes in which rape victims don't matter -- unless of course one is related to her -- and men can take what they can grab?

That's a parsimonious argument, and to me the null hypothesis. You haven't substantiated any reason why someone should view things the other way around, certainly not with your argument about (lack of) consequentialist thinking. In fact, more statistics from the Jewkes study which you reference demonstrate my point: the study claims that only one out of every 25 rapes are reported to police. No wonder they're not in prison if none of them are prosecuted!

This argument also is very well-behaved, in that it doesn't flatter either side of the debate over third world immigration: it's just as bad if an immigrant rapes you because of some deeply-ingrained sociocultural disregard for rape victims as for some deformation of breed. You don't need to make the essentialist claim to make the political claim you're aiming to make, which means you're forcing your argument to become radioactive without improving its function. Unless, of course, the function is to create a hierarchy of status based on inherent characteristics that places oneself at the top, in which case it seems suited to the purpose. It's only a pity your core claim makes no logical sense regardless.

And that's my central point: none of this touches on the actual point I was highlighting, because those aren't claims you initially presented. You added those as a part of your retreat to the motte, and even when presenting your motte you've ignored some obvious alternative (and quite parsimonious!) explanations of the phenomenon. You're not reasoning from evidence to a conclusion, you're reasoning from a conclusion to what the evidence must therefore say. Gesturing wildly in a direction is not civilization-tier reasoning.

And in that connection, you decided that a rapist's defensive claim intended to deflect from naming his impact on his victims -- an almost textbook self-protective act of ego defense for whom the target is the self and the journalist is just witnessing it -- was somehow a revelation of cognitive architecture concerning consequences, in direct contradiction to the actual cognitive architecture he was displaying, in which consequences to him and his buddies are very, very important.

And moreover you turned an argument about antisociality into an argument about cognition, somehow, like the problem with the Zodiac was that his puzzles weren't clever enough. Your point wasn't even "Africans are antisocial" or "African men don't think about the consequences of their actions towards women." You could have said those things, and we could discuss them. But you didn't. You wrote:

These people are a different model of human, there are the high performance peoples that make advanced civilizations and then there are the low-performance peoples who don't think about the consequences. They can but they don't, it doesn't come naturally to them, not really their thing. More habitual pattern-followers than abstract reasoners.

I especially note the "they can but they don't" part -- which is where I think you realized what you shared didn't support what you were saying, and tried to hedge it, as you're doing now. You're retreating to a different argument, which is a claim about population rape statistics, while hemming and hawing about consequentialist thinking because it's very, very clear that your initial comment's claims about cognition don't hold water.

We're not even talking about the political dispute at this point, or even about race, really, I'm just standing in a kind of stilted awe at how you got from A to B. "Does not want to think about consequences of his actions to victims" simply does not equal "does not naturally think about consequences." It certainly doesn't inherently equal "habitual pattern-followers," for God's sake!

If you're going to make an argument that some population of people are different models of human who don't think about consequences, you damn well need to make sure that your bat cracks like thunder when you hit the ball. Your claim doesn't meet that standard, not by a long shot. Whatever kind of thinking this is, I would not describe it as "high performance."

On that note -- if you hadn't had breakfast this morning, how would you feel?

you've conveniently forgotten the most obvious and immediate person a violent criminal would want to mislead as to his motivations and capacity for choosing another way: himself

He's not deceiving himself, he doesn't have the IQ for that. You're reading way too far into psychology here. They are not torturing themselves with guilt or deliberately keeping themselves ignorant, they're not lying to seem like good people to themselves seconds after they were just boasting to about all the horrible rape they've been doing!

"When she sees you with a knife or anything that is a weapon, she will stay still, she will never scream"

This is not the words of a man who is trying to defend his own ego, his self-image of being a good person!

Furthermore, it is obvious that these people don't think about longer-term consequences of their actions (or to be more precise, think much less about consequences), even when it is to their benefit. That's almost the definition of intelligence, having a long time-horizon, planning and predicting the future. At the very least it's incredibly close to intelligence or a byproduct of intelligence. You already said you agree on this about group differences. What do you think the group differences are exactly? How do you think they got this rapey culture if it wasn't derived from their nature? The Dutch or the English taught them to rape women?

The guy who murdered Iryna Zarutska, Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr - would you say he demonstrated understanding of the consequences of his actions? He obviously could've attacked strong men with a knife but he picked a weaker target instead. Presumably he knew, even in his state of retardation, that attacking a big guy was a lot more dangerous than a small girl. But that standard of 'consequence understanding' is so pathetically low it's laughable. He gained absolutely nothing from killing this girl, it cost him a great deal to do so in public under cameras. It was a really stupid decision even if we assume it was easing his racial hatred.

Would you give these guys a prize for their deception antics in pretending to be a nice guy before 'jackrolling' the girl and 'going one by one'? They've executed some basic calumny, hurrah for their faculties! No, they've risked getting HIV, they know about that risk but they rape anyway for a momentary thrill. They're retarded.

You should reread and comprehend my comment where I said 'it doesn't come naturally to them'. Calculus doesn't come naturally to me, I struggle with it. They can reason but at a low level and often not at all, especially if it's something more abstract. They didn't understand the first couple of times when the white guy is like 'oh how did the woman feel about you raping them'. They weren't evading, it went over their heads! it takes them a few seconds to crank up the underdeveloped consequences-understanding engine, especially if it's abstract moral thinking rather than just crude violent plots. Note also this is the absolute most barebones moral reasoning possible.

And in that connection, you decided that a rapist's defensive claim intended to deflect from naming his impact on his victims -- an almost textbook self-protective act of ego defense for whom the target is the self and the journalist is just witnessing it

I really don't think you watched the video, how they laugh about threatening to kill and rape these girls, the jackrolling, how they bring up their rapist antics impromptu and then have them deciding to lie about how they feel to protect their self-image. I don't see how you can have watched it and thought 'oh these guys have a normal mental process and would lie to themselves'. At most they pattern-match, comically switching to 'oh yeah rape is wrong' when prompted... seconds after talking about how sometimes she enjoyed them raping her, seconds after talking about how they do it forcibly at knifepoint.

He's not deceiving himself, he doesn't have the IQ for that.

This seems like a strange claim. Three-year-olds lie to themselves when they've been naughty. I agree with @urquan that it's an extremely basic, natural human reaction to a feeling of guilt, not some sophisticated cognitive contortion that only superior minds can master. If anything, I'd say that idiots lie to themselves more thoroughly and more successfully than midwits and geniuses - less cognitive bandwidth means less lingering self-doubt about one's own bullshit, once swallowed.

These aren't the words of a man who is trying to defend his own ego, his self-image of being a good person!

Why not? It all depends on where he's built the mental wall. One form of denial is "I never raped a woman at knifepoint, of course not, it's not true, you're lying", but another form, which is just as psychologically soothing, just not legally helpful, is "it's an animal instinct, I couldn't control myself, it's not that I'm a mean person who wants the girl to suffer, I just literally couldn't think about that until I got my nut out". Many serial killers, never mind rapists, rationalized their behavior to themselves in this way - not by lying to themselves about what they were doing, but lying to themselves about how much agency they had in choosing to do it.

I don't know how you have access to the Western internet enough to watch porn but not get Western attitudes on this.

...it definitely makes sense to me, for several reasons. One, the porn is a lot easier to consume than the ideological rhetoric; you don't need to speak the language or understand sophisticated concepts or anything, it's just speaking directly to the id. And second, the porn itself certainly doesn't carry the Western attitudes, it carries a sort of shadow-self of the Western attitudes, it carries all the things that the Western attitudes are repressing. You aren't going to learn that the West hates rape more than your culture by watching all of the West's bodice-ripper fantasies while jerking off.

And I certainly don't think that this is quokka cope; I was only introduced to this idea recently and it was horrifying to me for quite the opposite reason. I already had a low view of this sort of man and was deeply pessimistic about their implications for the West in terms of rape, but I'd previously kind of implicitly assumed that they didn't consume much porn, because porn is a very culturally Western thing and they're defined by alienation from that, by regressive values. But porn is the exact kind of cultural artifact that would be able to leak through to that bit of the psychic landscape, isn't it? And they wouldn't see it the way we do at all, because they don't have built-up repressed Freudian scar tissue for it to rest in.

But the bottom line is, I don't think that the problem being terminal pornbrain contradicts it being contempt or reversion to habit. I think that the porn inflames contempt in them, a contempt that they already had but somewhat less deeply, and it shapes how they revert to their habits. It's like leading a killer dog around by waving red meat.

EDIT: Put another way, if you're horrified by the implications of these "refugee" men watching, say, videos produced by middle school girls at the behest of public officials, welcoming them into the country in a chaste and innocent fashion - and I am horrified by that - how the fuck do you think they're going to view the entire internet's worth of easily-obtainable pornography? Because I imagine that'll leave a rather larger psychological imprint on them.

In principle, I don't see a problem here. If the concept of "asylum" is coherent at all, then we shouldn't be looking to vet asylum seekers for whether they're good additions to the country, the way would ordinary immigrants - any more than hospitals ask for patients to send in resumes in triplicate. Of course some of the refugees you're temporarily taking in out of humanitarian concerns will be ill-suited to coexisting with the locals; by all rights your standards for Jews you are willing to hide in your basement when the Gestapo are on the prowl should be lower than your standards for peacetime houseguests. A booklet like this only looks off if you take it for granted that "asylum seeker" is nothing but a fancy word for "immigrant". Which is understandable in the current status quo, but it's not the booklet that's at fault.

If the concept of "asylum" is coherent at all

Indeed, it isn't!

but it's not the booklet that's at fault.

A booklet bears no responsibility. It is a booklet.

The government that produced the useless booklet is also the government that let in culturally-incompatible rapists that, assuming they can even read the booklet, will not waste their time. The government has failed fifteen ways to Sunday and is so deep in the Oedipus Trap that they'll produce a booklet instead of doing anything even remotely theoretically effective.

Edit: oh god i just noticed the examples posted online of the booklet are in English. What an absolute fucking joke.

If the Jews I hid from the Gestapo proceeded to rape every non-Jewish girl in my neighborhood that they could get their hands on, I would be well within my rights to turn them over to whomever I pleased, or just kill them myself. It's nonsense to say that people need to accept endless victimization to protect other people from endless victimization. If the asylum seekers want help, they can cooperate with their supposed allies instead of defecting.

Like, what are you actually proposing here? That the British keep letting their women be raped? No turning away anybody, ever, as long as there's a war on?

He's proposing that the British take steps to ensure asylum seekers are socialized and understand local laws and customs. Which is what they did and what everyone is complaining about.

I dispute the efficacy of "please don't rape children" pamphlets. I don't think you can actually "socialize" would-be child rapists with mandatory HR training.

There are many times in life that Doing Something that are so egregiously tone-deaf and counter-productive that they are more likely to make the problem worse. By producing this booklet, the government has almost certainly reduced the rate of assault 0%, but generated even more outrage about the problem and opposition to immigration. It would be too-clever-by-half for fiction; as it is, it's just sad.

Do you really think any rapist has had their mind changed by a brochure? How about one from a completely different culture? I note that the only examples of the brochure publicized are in English. Did some pathological progressive say it would be too racist to distribute them in meaningful languages?

I'm reminded of, during COVID, British Columbia producing propaganda encouraging LGBT+ people (well, we really know which letter, but still) to use gloryholes to avoid face-to-face contact and reduce the spread of COVID. This ran concurrent to advice that people not host holiday parties or visit their dying relatives. Or, like, 90% of similar "harm reduction" ideas. Or the XKCD about voting machines, from back when it was funny.

Do you really think any rapist has had their mind changed by a brochure?

I mean, yes? What, do you think all non-Europeans are just animals that can't understand words? How do you propose to teach someone the rules of a society - should we strap them down Clockwork Orange-style? Or just chemically castrate them as a prerequisite for asylum?

I know, I know, the real solution is: let's not allow anyone into the country that isn't already a Western liberal. It's a bit late for that though.

Obviously this brochure isn't the complete solution, but it's a step in the right direction that admits to the problem and tries to address it.

Obviously this brochure isn't the complete solution, but it's a step in the right direction that admits to the problem and tries to address it.

I guess it's whether you think the modal immigrant rapist is a mistake theorist or a conflict theorist. Shabir Ahmed moved to the UK when he was six, he absolutely knew the rules. But he also thought that white slags were okay to rape and that Pakistanis were '...the supreme race, not those white bastards' (an exact quote from his trial).

I don't think these guys are children who don't realise that rape is wrong. I think they consider it a wrong (as in, a wrong was done to me) but their circle of empathy doesn't extend to the women of their host society.

I mean, yes?

Maybe it's my failure of imagination but my experience with criminals is that they are not dissuaded by brochures. I find it hard to swallow that there's much overlap between "people that think women are second-class citizens, think rape of an unconscious person is acceptable, etc" and "people that are convinced to not do something because of a finger-wagging brochure." I just- I won't say strictly impossible, it's probably not a true null set, but there's probably not many people going "oh I was gonna go rape that 12 year old, but this brochure telling me that's not nice convinced me not to."

do you think all non-Europeans are just animals that can't understand words?

Now that is an impressive lack of charity!

I do rather doubt that English is their first language, for the relevant population at hand. I also doubt that potential rapists are dissuaded by polite pamphlets when there's probably no consequences anyways.

Scott's famous pieces like Radicalizing the Romanceless and Untitled come to mind. The kind of person that needs to be told this and hasn't already learned it is not the kind of person that's going to change their mind by reading.

How do you propose to teach someone the rules of a society - should we strap them down Clockwork Orange-style?

IIRC Denmark requires migrants to attend language and culture classes to receive any benefits, but doesn't strap them down.

Deporting anyone that refuses to attend the class seems like a fine standard, but since the UK won't even deport rapists if they can avoid it, it's a lost cause.

It's a bit late for that though.

Second best time to plant a tree and all that. They could at least stop accepting more, but that's apparently too difficult too.

Or just chemically castrate them as a prerequisite for asylum?

Reasonable punishment for the rapists among them, at least. But alas, someone decided they have a right to recidivate instead.

I'll concede to a little hyperbole, but I was responding to the question 'has any rapist had their mind changed' - not, is this brochure the best way to change minds, but literally 'I don't think a single one of these people could be convinced to stop raping'.

Anyway, I think there's two groups you're conflating. Rapists in modern cultures are generally sociopaths who don't care that what they're doing is wrong. But rapists from these immigrant communities are much more common than the incidence of sociopathy. They see nothing wrong with things that in Western countries we consider rape (e.g. date rape, marital rape, rape of those from a lower caste) because they are from a culture that sees these things as normal. They're not raping because they don't care about the rules, but because they are following different rules. It follows, then, that part of the solution must be educating them on the new rules. Not the whole solution, but a start at least.

I think people are primarily complaining about how they did it, rather than what.

Putting aside the euphemism of asylum seeker, I think your argument is somewhat flawed.

Yes, true refugees probably should have a lower standard relative to an immigrant. But there comes a point where the damage caused by refugees outweighs the moral benefit of taking them in.

I think “they rape so much we need to explain ‘rape is bad’” is the line.

The funny thing about rape is the west only made rape illegal in around 1865. It’s not even that ancient of a thing that was practiced in Western Society. A civilized advanced society still had rape legal only 80 years ago.

The interesting thing here is that it’s the asylum seekers who think they have a right to rape the British. That says more about who thinks who has power.

The group that has access to another groups women is generally in power. The group politely asking to not rape their women is generally not politically powerful.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is nowadays to track down the actual Code Noirs in regards to treatment of slaves in the American South?

To quote;

VI. We forbid our white subjects, of both sexes, to marry with the blacks, under the penalty of being fined and subjected to some other arbitrary punishment. We forbid all curates, priests, or missionaries of our secular or regular clergy, and even our chaplains in our navy to sanction such marriages. We also forbid all our white subjects, and even the manumitted or free-born blacks, to live in a state of concubinage with blacks. Should there be any issue from this kind of intercourse, it is our will that the person so offending, and the master of the slave, should pay each a fine of three hundred livres. Should said issue be the result of the concubinage of the master with his slave, said master shall not only pay the fine, but be deprived of the slave and of the children, who shall be adjudged to the hospital of the locality, and said slaves shall be forever incapable of being set free. But should this illicit intercourse have existed between a free black and his slave, when said free black had no legitimate wife, and should said black marry said slave according to the forms prescribed by the church, said slave shall be thereby set free, and the children shall also become free and legitimate ; and in such a case, there shall be no application of the penalties mentioned in the present article.

source

Now, there is a valid arguement to be made that the enforcement of said laws wasn't exactly strict, or that there wasn't fair and equatible treatment thereof. But you can't say that, by the written law on paper, that the situation was a case of 'It's free real estate!' for people to do whatever they want with thier female slaves.

And, yes, this is only one case of a very specific state in regards to thier treatment on slaves. But it was also put to paper in 1724. I don't have the time to invest to track down and compare all Code Noirs from that particular time period, or do a comparative analysis on how things changed over time leading up to the Civil War.

The funny thing about rape is the west only made rape illegal in around 1865.

Rape was not legal in the West before slavery was abolished. Slaves just didn't count as "people" and so you were allowed to do many things to slaves that were crimes if done to non-slaves.

Rape was illegal long before 1865. The abolition of slavery did not (finally) criminalize rape; it just added former slaves to the category of people to whom legal protections (theoretically) apply.

I really dislike this disingenuous form of argumentation.

Furthermore I'm pretty sure it wasn't legal to rape other people's slaves at any point -- I don't think it was that common actually for slaves not to be considered "people"; the sticking point was that they were people who you owned. And what's the point of owning someone if you can't have sex with them?

Do Britains count as people to the asylum seeking groups? Or are they not their people to them?

I think this is where I see the parallel. The asylum seekers don’t view Britains as their tribe and hence the protections from rape don’t apply in their worldview just as Americans didn’t view blacks as people.

You are arguing that Britains were being raped in the modern sense that has been illegal for a long time and I guess I would agree with. My argument is the rape gangs were raping in the far more disrespectful sense that the West even condoned fairly recently of allowing the rape of a rival lesser tribe.

Protections from rape don't apply in their worldview because they are from cultures where rape of their own women is more of a property crime (offense against the woman's father/husband) than a personal violation. Women behaving in their culture the way British women do (i.e., walking around freely not under the obvious protection of a man) are also viewed as fair game.

If they view it as a property crime then me comparing it to raping slaves would seem to be the same thing?

Although it would also be a contrarian argument, I think it might be fair to say that rape in the modern sense was only made illegal when marital rape was, which was even more recently. That's because it completed a framing shift to ongoing consent; ancient rape was a major crime but a property crime, and the shift to the current understanding was a gradual one.

I'd argue that rape "in the modern sense" has been illegal for centuries. As with abolition, the criminalization of marital rape simply expanded the category of people to whom legal protections against criminal assault applied. (Wives were in a sense considered property of their husbands- much as it used to be legal to beat your children.) You can still read people arguing that marriage implies permanent unconditional consent and therefore marital rape doesn't/shouldn't exist.

Which is why I find @RandomRanger's argument that Africans are not human beings like us unconvincing; low IQ people have problems modeling other people's minds, showing empathy, or thinking about consequences, but it's also downstream of culture. Many Muslim immigrants are not particularly low IQ, but it's their culture that tells them women are property and caring how a woman feels about being raped is like caring how a chicken feels about being eaten. The ancients likewise considered rape a property crime, not because they couldn't understand that women had feelings and didn't like being raped, but because that just wasn't part of their moral framework.

but it's their culture that tells them women are property

I'm sure culture is one input, but I still think this is over-weighting it. There are real differences in moral emphasis and social control. The profiles of Pakistani grooming gangs and the black men in that video track more closely with impulsivity, low future orientation, weak impulse control, and the simple absence of strong deterrent in low trust environments. I'm not a hardcore HBDer, but there is a genetic component to culture, and human behaviour is driven by continuous feedback loop between genetics and culture.

I don't disagree that there is a hereditary component and that genes affect behavior (and thus culture). I would argue that an African or Arab raised in a Western culture might still be comparatively low in intelligence, impulse control, etc., but would be much less likely to be an amoral barbarian incapable of understanding that rape is bad. We know that African Americans are more likely to be criminals, 13/52 and all that, for reasons HBDers recite endlessly, but the vast majority of African Americans do not act like those South African men.

What country are you referring to here? As far as I'm aware, rape has been illegal for centuries even in the now third world societies. Do you mean age of consent and/or marital rape?

I thought it was obvious by saying 1865. That would include rape of slaves. I included 80 years ago too because Japan had comfort women during WW2. I think that’s the limits of wealthy nations doing rape recently. Some passport bro stuff still has huge power imbalances but not quite rape. Christopher Columbus did rape with native girls. One of the founding stories of Rome was the Raping of the Sabine.

The my main point is that asylum seekers doing raping is quite odd because it’s usually the more educated and advanced people doing the raping historically. Rape is disrespectful to British in ways that other crime would not be.

But we're discussing rape as a "public security" issue in peacetime. The "random strangers in an alley rip off a teenager's clothes and force themselves on her at 3am" kind, where the perps do not belong to the educated and advanced profile. That has been a crime for centuries, and remains an ambient problem in third world societies. Not really comparable to wartime atrocities IMO. And many of these societies do criminalise that kind of rape, but are hindered by structural challenges in actually enforcing the law. Now China is an advanced country, but marital rape is "legal" there. Yet Chinese men in the west rank bottom in all crime statistics.

But we're discussing rape as a "public security" issue in peacetime.

Which would be fine if it was peacetime.

But here, one section of the populace is running cover for their very literal footsoldiers, which serves to encourage them to use the local(s as) comfort women.

That doesn't sound like peacetime to me.

This sort of thing is only rape if you think the locals have the right to their own bodies, but judging by how they have reacted to being raped, I think the upper class's view (the people running that cover and the people voting for it[1]) that they do not is completely justified. Americans justified slavery pre-1860 with this observation as well.

By contrast, if you think they do own themselves, the excuses the upper class gave for that were literally "we don't want to give the local populace an excuse to start fighting our migrants occupation force". Though in defense of inaction, rapes are basically just the equivalent to the random rocket-bombings of 1984, where it would be more expensive to fight the Party to have them stop than accepting it's just the cost of doing business[2].

[1] Which can either simply be a power thing (these people generally don't have daughters, so that's OK), or they're so morality-porn-brained that they think it's good that the migrants are permitted this kind of salary.

[2] Orwell thinks it's important enough to say they haven't realized, but would it even matter day-to-day if they did? Just as the average Afghani thinks, there is no Britain for them. There is simply 'where can food/water be obtained from, where the lodging is'.
Nationalism is not natural.

That doesn't sound like peacetime to me.

I get your hyperbole but peacetime is conventionally understood as "not in active military conflict".

More comments

Japanese comfort women were in areas that Japan had achieved occupation and not as part of a battle followed by mass rape. Japan had legal control at the time over places like Korea. They had administrative control and apparently ratified things like The Hague Convention but still set up mass rape facilities.

And I thinking hiding behind well slavery was legal before 1865 so rape of Africans doesn’t count is weak. US effectively allowed mass rape of other humans as part of slavery.

I think my main point is that the West or the semi-civilized Japan have allowed rape on different tribes under certain conditions. And Asylum seekers raping lower class Britains is a strong sign they don’t view Britains as their tribe. I may be wrong but I don’t think Pakistanis regularly rape Pakistanis but have systems to mitigate that.

I'm not disputing that certain forms of rape were legal in western countries until very recently. Rape is punishable by death in Pakistan, but they have a hard time in actually enforcing the law. I did not get your point before, yes there is a thing as "revenge rape" but I'm unsure about the tribal element. Some 82% of rapists in Pakistan are fathers or brothers of the victim, which don't get reported. It's likely true they don't view Britons as their tribe, but I think they target white girls simply because white people are the UK's majority.

The funny thing about rape is the west only made rape illegal in around 1865. It’s not even that ancient of a thing that was practiced in Western Society. A civilized advanced society still had rape legal only 80 years ago.

I'm somehow getting the feeling you are referring to something very specific, and not "you could just drag a random European chick into the bushes, and have your way with her, and it was perfectly legal all the way up to 1865".

1865 was the Thirteenth Amendment. So long as slavery was legal, it was legal to rape slaves.

Is that actually true? The premise does not necessarily imply the conclusion. For example even today, animal ownership is legal, but it is not legal to rape (or torture) animals.

I'll note that I'm not the OP, and also that I didn't mean that slavery being legal entailed that raping slaves must have been legal, I was merely making explicit Opt-out's apparent factual claim that this was so with American slavery pre-1865.

Quickly looking into it, the situation does seem to have been more complex, and unsurprisingly varied from state to state. When it comes to white masters raping their black slaves, no state seems to have been so crass as to explicitly allow it in law, even if it was a widespread practice. That being said, I did find this 1850s Mississippi Supreme Court case which explicitly ruled that "the crime of rape does not exist in this state between African slaves" as "their sexual intercourse is left to be regulated by their owners". This seems to decriminalize master-on-slave rape only by implication, but it does at the very least explicitly legalize slave-on-slave rape, so it was sometimes legal to rape slaves.

I thought you meant "the west" in general, or on average, not "in one of the western countries".

Jews you are willing to hide in your basement when the Gestapo are on the prowl should be lower than your standards for peacetime houseguests.

No they shouldn't. I have no obligation towards Jews. I may help people because I like them. If they don't clear my likeability bar they should raise complaint with the Gestapo.

And no one in Europe aside from Ukrainians and Russians is real asylum seeker.

A phrase I’ve always detested whenever I would hear it goes something like, “First they came for me for I X, then they came for him because I Y, lastly they came for me a second time (or some shit) and there was no one else to defend me,” or some idiotic diatribe like that. There are far too many examples in society of pathologically altruistic people who spend way too much time advocating for the interests of groups who in turn, quickly turn right around and dispose of them at a moment’s notice and never saw them for anything more than a useful idiot to be discarded after all the value had been extracted out of them. I’ve seen it with every group out there including my own family. People who will come to you with a sob story so you’ll take them in and then they proceed eat you out of house and home and after you’ve been consumed and spent, they say to themselves “The well’s all dried up here,” and then they move onto the next victim. They’ll quickly forget you ever existed and stop taking your phone calls when you need them. I had this discussion with a peer a long time ago who did a prison stint for activity he was part of when he was still in a gang. Got out and found he was PNG’d. He said to me, “All that work put in and this is how they’ll treat you. Damn. The hood forgets you really fast.”

I’m an enjoyer of parodies of that poem. One example that has been making the rounds:

First they came for the gypsies—I said nothing for I was not a gypsy.
Then they came for the Somalis—and I said “good, make sure you get all the Somalis.”

One I loled at:

First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the migrants, and I did not speak out, for I was not a migrant.

Then all the problems were solved, so they kind of stopped coming for people.

Wog poetry. Any true son of the soil knows that gypsies are worse.

And no one in Europe aside from Ukrainians and Russians is real asylum seeker.

That's rather my point (I mean, I'd say there are a few others e.g. Uyghurs, but same difference). As someone who does believe in the moral duty to aid genuine asylum seekers, I dislike the fact that the "asylum seeker" category has been turned into "immigrant 2.0" and massively overstrained. I would like it to get its old meaning back. Therefore, I approve of official documents which acknowledge that coexisting with asylum seekers is not necessarily comfortable; that when and if we choose to grant that status, we do it out of ethical duty, not because we are mistaking the asylum seekers for swell, prosocial immigrants whom we'd love to see put down roots once the crisis is over. Asking if asylum-seekers are a good fit for Western values is a category error, and pretending that they must be before we can let them in is precisely the overreach that lets asylum-seekers trade on public goodwill to turn into permanent residents.

Just to add a little on this point. The other day I briefly caught the first half of a Piers Morgan episode while at work that was pretty hilarious. Shmuley is a guy who has zero self-awareness of how bad of a job he does for his own cause (he’s a 100 on the neurotic scale) and never once in his life learned to simply shut his damn mouth (along with Dershowitz incidentally).

Anyway, at about the 49th red herring he pulls out of his ass, he accused a fellow Nordic of being an immoral guy for refusing to take in Palestinian refugees or advocating for them to seek asylum in Iceland. Shmuley would’ve had a valid point to make, only to the extent that Iceland played an active role in the ongoing destruction in Gaza. The US is responsible solely for its contribution to the problem, of which it’s a co-belligerent and one of the primary enablers if not an outright instigator itself. I will also acknowledge a moral requirement to make good for the harm you’ve caused or participated in and wouldn’t object on those moral grounds that one should be obligated to take in select asylum seekers.

by all rights your standards for Jews you are willing to hide in your basement when the Gestapo are on the prowl should be lower than your standards for peacetime houseguests.

I think this is a profoundly tasteless context in which to invoke the Holocaust. Are any of these so-called "asylum seekers" fleeing literal genocide? Most of the headlines I've seen boil down to "we can't send this man who raped a British woman back to his home country, because he'd be put to death for having committed the same crime over there (which was, in fact, the very thing that prompted him to flee in the first place)".

Are any of these so-called "asylum seekers" fleeing literal genocide?

My point is that they should be - that this is what the legal category "asylum seeker" is supposed to be for - and the booklet makes sense in that context. To the extent that the category has been artificially expanded in a way that makes the booklet look weird, it's the expansion that is to blame, not the booklet.

Are any of these so-called "asylum seekers" fleeing literal genocide?

My point is that they should be

Well, you know, be the change you want to see in the world and all that.

If the concept of "asylum" is coherent at all

I think the revealed preference of a lot of people is that they don't actually want a coherent asylum system, they want a practical one. The moral sentiment of a right to asylum is nice, so people are for it so long as the technological and political situations are such that its full implications are never seen.

That is the mismatch between the populace and the people who have to implement the rules as written.

You see the same kind of rules in discord servers and bars. "Inappropriate conduct should be reported and will not be tolerated. Offenses will resort in a ban. Inappropriate conduct includes, but is not limited to, initiating unwanted interactions, sexual interactions (ESPECIALLY with minors), soliciting drugs..."

If anything this kind of list is way more appropriate in the context of immigrants who come from different cultures and may be used to very different norms. My only complaint is that the "could"s in the list should be replaced with "will"s. If your interactions conflict with these core values of our society which we consider both reasonable and important, then your claim to asylum is going to be rejected. You will be arrested, sentenced, and subsequently deported never to return here again.

This kind of list does not on its own reflect poorly on the average immigrant or suggests that the statistics actually do show a worrying trend which the government is trying to keep from us (such a trend may exist, but this is not evidence). Like the list of discord rules, it is simply a way to inform everyone about the basic rules, and give something to point to in case someone breaks them. The rule breakers could be rare, immigration could still be an overall good thing, but given enough people you can be certain some bad ones exist.

If you spread warnings about how Jews are to be on notice that they shouldn't be sacrificing Christian babies for Passover, and that any Jew who does this will be punished for murder, the primary effect is not to discourage Jews from sacrificng babies, the primary effect is to tell everyone how bad the Jews are. People are too autistic here; a message that literally says "don't do X" is often there not to be a neutral code of conduct that recognizes that X is wrong, but rather is meant to be an accusation.

The rules telling migrants not to rape are either 1) feminists accusing men and not realizing that they are incidentally being anti-immigration, or 2) subversion that is meant to accuse immigrants but is phrased to get progressives to go along. (Or 3) anti-immigration feminists, but I'm not sure how many of those exist.) They may be accurate or not, but either way they are accusations.

the statistics actually do show a worrying trend which the government is trying to keep for us (such a trend may exist, but this is not evidence)

Here's your evidence.

My only complaint is that the "could"s in the list should be replaced with "will"s.

Charitably, this could be an attempt to acknowledge the reality of imperfect enforcement from the word go so as not to come across as all bark and no bite later. i.e. a way to head off reasoning of the form "Hur hur, the fancy booklet said that if anyone has sex with a sleeping woman he will go to jail, but my cousin Ahmed did that last month and totally got away with it, can't fool me with empty threats" by saying upfront that it's a risk you incur, not an infallible process.

Charity is not a suicide pact.

this could be an attempt to acknowledge the reality of imperfect enforcement from the word go so as not to come across as all bark and no bite later.

Well, yes, we know there's minimal enforcement.

a way to head off reasoning of the form

you have far too high an opinion of rapists.

The risk of doing it this way is that it indicates the law might be lenient or not taken seriously. Like, in some countries bribing public officials could result in jail time, but actually it is the main way to get anything done. "Hur hur, I know this game. As long as I don't do it too loudly, I am going to be fine."

That's also true. You can probably play infinite recursion with this, and plausibly you're right that it would be better to leave it at "You will" than start playing the triple-bluff game. I just sort of got the impression that you were accusing the authors of the booklet of wanting to soften the threat - that you interpreted them as saying "well, if you're naughty, we might have to expel you, although don't worry, we might choose to be lenient" - and I wanted to make the point that this was not necessarily the intention behind the "could"s.

The idea that most of the asylum seekers are carefully parsing the connotations of the pamphlet phrasing seems implausible. Most won't read it, and those who do will not be the ones inclined toward consent accidents anyway.

I agree; but the idea that British bureaucrats would carefully overthink the conjugation of the modal verbs in a piece of official paperwork, on the other hand, isn't so implausible.

Symptoms of a failed state the way I see it. The only realistic solution I can think of that doesn’t involve executing these people is repatriation. But one thing I’ve always wondered is, what if their home country refuses to take them back? If I was a cynical and opportunistic statesman, I’d see it more in my interest to see them there so that future endeavors ensure I have a foothold or entryway into influencing the politics of another country because let’s face it, “immigration” may be the name of the game but it’s “integration” that really matters. Populations that just truck along side by side in the same territory isn’t a way for either one to live life meaningfully.

But one thing I’ve always wondered is, what if their home country refuses to take them back?

Not my circus, not my monkeys. They and their home country—or whatever African country has the cheapest direct flight—can figure it out in the airport once they get there.

For most of these countries - think like West Africa, not Afghanistan - their wealthy elites all want to be able to visit the West, buy property, open bank accounts. And they're the ones who have the power at home.

what if their home country refuses to take them back?

Third country deportation. Just dump them in a poor African country.

"But this guy isn't African." No worries, he'll learn to fit in.

what if their home country refuses to take them back?

The typical right wing response is "stop aid and remittances, refuse to issue visas to anyone else from those countries"

I think that might work for removing illegal migrants, but wholesale uprooting of the community that sends remittances in the first place is basically threatening to shoot the hostage unless you get what you want.

It's already a political problem sending some of these people back home in places like West Africa. People would dig in their heels

Gunboat diplomacy to take them.

And if they’ve already been living in your country? I don’t thinking rounding them all up in a Kristallnacht is going to make great international news.

You punish their source country until they decide to take them. And if Kristallnacht is needed to keep Europe safe, then so be it. Although I think that there are some milder approaches to culturally assimilate the better lot of them if we are hard enough. And only deport the culturally incompatible ones.

Anyway chemical castration for border trespassing is a suitable punishment I think that will do wonders both for reducing immigration/refugees and sexual assaults committed by them.

Although I think that there are some milder approaches to culturally assimilate the better lot of them if we are hard enough.

If the local community got a direct vote on which migrants got to stay, you'd see a level of civility that would rival major tourist centers.

I don't know if that's assimilation but it'd certainly be different.

major tourist centers

Anecdotally, many places with lots of tourism have locals that really dislike tourists. Even when tourism indirectly pays the bills.

Yeah they may complain about them, but actual antisocial acts are usually policed pretty hard even in countries where Western norms are totally different to the local ones.

On the contrary. The first state to round up illegal immigrants and asylum fraudsters to airdrop them over their country of origin may receive all the tut-tuts in the world, but it will also demonstrate that it is in fact a functioning state that is not to be trifled with and the laws of which are actually binding.

… airdrop them over their country of origin…

Lmao. Did you mean this literally?

I meant it ambiguously.

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