site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15920 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.

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".

I don't think he intends it as hyperbole.

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.

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