site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12529 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 17, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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