site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24468 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.

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.

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