site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   13235 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 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

British empire was historically surprisingly insular, especially when it comes to colonies. In 1841 there were only 0.25% of foreign bon 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.

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.

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.

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