site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20664 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.

Emmet Till

Even back then, the media would selectively highlight certain events to make the public pattern-match for a narrative that doesn’t exist. They arbitrarily created a negative valence around “White racism”, which naturally resulted in negative valence around White people and their civilization. This is the sort of thing you can easily prove in a lab: gather a bunch of people to read something every day for a week, and variably present them with stories such that when they see the word X it is often immediately associated with something aversive or else it predicts something aversive. The former is called evaluative conditioning and it’s resilient to counter-conditioning; when the progressive college student in 2020 would scroll headlines and quickly read “White cop shoots Black woman in Chicago”, “why White privilege is worse than you think”, I mean the headlines were so over-the-top I can’t even recreate them with skill, they were essentially being brainwashed in a scientifically predictable fashion. Staats & Staats (1958) trivially conditioned positive and negative emotions onto nationality words in this way (which probably used evaluative conditioning more than Pavlovian conditioning). The problem was heightened when people trusted the news and entered a trance state when consuming the news. It’s simply that the wrong people were in charge of the media, which is effectively a conditioning device for the masses, and whoever was controlling the media really wanted to instill a reflexive dislike of White people and their things. Virtually all of the problems are downstream from media conditioning (academics also really like absorbing media and are perhaps a bit more gullible than the average bear).

[Just regarding Till specifically: if you were to go into the hood and grab the hand of someone’s girlfriend (not even wife), and then chase her to grab her waist, there’s a good chance you will be shot and killed. This was always a non-story, and note that the media would never report on the phenomena that nearly all cross-race rapes between Whites and Blacks involve a White female victim. This is because they’re not interested in telling you a horrible fact of reality, they are trying to condition you in a certain manner.]

negative valence

This is the most important phrase to know when consuming any sort of media. The facts don't matter nearly so much as, what sort of emotion are they creating around it? That will lead the public to mimic that emotion, no matter what it is.

nearly all cross-race rapes between Whites and Blacks involve a White female victim.

Note that this may simply be because rapists do, in fact, want to have sex with their victims- and white women are generally vastly more attractive than black women. It doesn't necessarily mean that blacks are more violent(there is another set of statistics you'd need to use to make that argument).

Dating website stats (like OkCupid's stats from a decade or so ago) also suggest that black women would be far more willing to have sex with a white man than white women would be willing to with a black man.

note that the media would never report on the phenomena that nearly all cross-race rapes between Whites and Blacks involve a White female victim.

The perpetrator chooses the victim. If the perpetrator chooses randomly, it is much more likely that a perpetrator in a small group would choose someone from a large group than a perpetrator in a large group would choose someone from a small group. And whites are a larger group. So it is statistically expected that cross-race rapes usually involve black perpetrators, and it does not mean that black people are more violent or more prone to rape the other race. It just means that since there are more whites, they have more oppopsite race targets.

Let the Black/White population proportions be P_B + P_W = 1, and assume groups have base rate r_B and r_W, and assume offenders victimise from the population at random (so no racial segregation, equal female sexual desirability for both races, etc)

So number of [race X] on [race Y] rapes = P_X * r_X * P_Y

So (# black on white rapes) / (# white on black rapes) = r_B / r_W

I claim this is the only reasonable reading of what @coffee_enjoyer said "nearly all cross-race rapes between Whites and Blacks involve a White female victim" and what you said "[with equal base rates] cross-race rapes [should irregardless] usually involve black perpetrators":

  • If you were given an unbiased feed of rapes and decided to focus in on the interracial cases (i.e. condition that victim race != perp race), the odds ratio you intuit will correspond to (1) - and indeed (1) should be 1 : 1 if B/W had equal rape rates (r_B / r_W = 1)
  • You guys phrase it sort of weirdly, talking about "[IR rape] involving a White female victim" and "[IR rape] involving a Black perpetrator", but once we've conditioned on the crime being interracial, both of those are the same and are referring exclusively to Black on White rape.

To be maximally charitable, I guess cross-racial ratios in isolation are not enough to say Blacks are more sexually dangerous than Whites, because White women are also more beautiful than Black women, so you should genuinely expect there to be a > 1:1 odds of an interracial rape being Black on White even with equal base rates.

Damn, are we even breaking arithmetic and/or algebra to carry water for blacks now?

Suppose 4,000 white men, 1,000 black men, with equal respective population sizes of women. Further suppose we live in a DESPITE-free alternative universe and the propensity to rape of both white and black men are the same, at 10% of the male populations being a rapist. So 400 white male rapists, 100 black male rapists.

Say each rapist only rapes once. If they choose their victims randomly, the expected number of white and black victims from the white male rapists is 320 and 80, respectively. The expected number of white and black victims from black male rapists is 80 and 20, respectively. Note that the white and black men have the same number of interracial rapes, both at 80. The greater probability of black men selecting white women based on random chance is balanced out by the greater number of white men.

However, we don’t live in such a bizarro DESPITE-free universe, so if we do observe that black-men-on-white-women rapes are more common than white-men-on-black-women rapes, that does mean that black men are more prone to committing rape than white men and/or are more likely to commit interracial rape.

Damn, are we even breaking arithmetic and/or algebra to carry water for blacks now?

FWIW I agree that @Jiro's math is nonsensical. It doesn't matter what the relative population sizes are, because a smaller population size means fewer potential rapists and fewer potential victims, which should precisely balance out (assuming even distribution of criminality and random victim selection).

that does mean that black men are more prone to committing rape than white men and/or are more likely to commit interracial rape.

Part of the issue, which came out during the Duke Lacrosse hoax, is that white on black rape is so rare as to be practically unheard of. This is a fact which causes liberals to freak out almost as much as other, more talked-about, racial disparities. And probably it's part of the reason why hoaxes like Duke Lacrosse can get so much traction.

That suggests that potential victims are equally distributed amongst the population. But if races are somewhat segregated, then it doesn’t follow that rape victims are randomly selected.

and it does not mean that black people are more violent or more prone to rape the other race.

Yes, it does.

Imagine a 80:20 split with equal propensity. The small group does 16 cross-group offenses and 4 in-group offenses. The large group does 16 cross-group offenses and 64 in-group offenses. The smaller target pool is perfectly balanced by the smaller perpetrator pool.

If that balance isn't maintained in reality, then why not?

I read "nearly all" to be a statement about ratios, not absolute numbers. What you (and Sloot above) said applies to absolute numbers.

Perhaps what you are trying to argue is that all things equal a larger amount of black crime would be interracial compared to white crime?

I agree that would be true as a matter of logic. As a matter of fact, though, all things are not equal.

Perhaps what you are trying to argue is that all things equal a larger amount of black crime would be interracial compared to white crime?

It seems to me that this would apply equally to both perpetration and victimization, so @Jiro 's point still doesn't make any sense.

So for example, suppose there are 100 blacks and 100,000,000 whites in society. If crime is randomly distributed, one would expect that if a black person is involved in a crime, almost certainly the other participant is white (while at the same time, if a white person is involved in a crime, almost certainly the other participant is NOT black).

But critically, this point applies equally to both black perpetrators AND black victims. So that if one looks only at interracial crimes, the ratio should still be equal.

Here's the point that was being responded to:

nearly all cross-race rapes between Whites and Blacks involve a White female victim

The argument that @Jiro made -- about relative sizes of populations -- doesn't explain this at all.

Perhaps what you are trying to argue is that all things equal a larger amount of black crime would be interracial compared to white crime?

Thank you.

I'm missing something. My model showed 16:16 total, or a 1:1 ratio. What did you mean?

Gesturing toward “nearly all” or “ratios” doesn’t salvage whatever point you were trying to make, it only further illustrates how the real world rejects the null hypothesis that black and white men are equally likely to commit rape/interracial rape.

In the hypothetical example I described—where by construction black and white men had equal propensity for rape and chose their victims randomly—the expected ratio of black-men-on-white-women to white-men-on-black-women rapes was 1:1. That is, white women were 50% of interracial rapes in the hypothetical, unlike “the [real world] phenomena that nearly all cross-race rapes between Whites and Blacks involve a White female victim” that @coffee_enjoyer mentioned.

I read "nearly all" to be a statement about ratios, not absolute numbers

Even so, your math is completely wrong. In a hypothetical world where (1) blacks and whites are equally likely to be rapists; and (2) victims are chosen at random, one would expect the ratio to be 1:1 as between black on white rape and white on black rape.

[Just regarding Till specifically: if you were to go into the hood and grab the hand of someone’s girlfriend (not even wife), and then chase her to grab her waist, there’s a good chance you will be shot and killed.

"The hood" is a social pathology that probably didn't exist in Till's time.

There were totally poor, racially segregated areas with high interpersonal violence in Till's time. That interpersonal violence is what killed him, after all.

I'm pretty sure economically depressed high violence slums have been around as long as human history, even if the current ones have particular racial connotations and drugs involved.

I think "the hood" as it exists today is a product of the Great Migration and later the crack epidemic. Till himself may have come from "the hood" (he was from Chicago), but he wasn't killed there, but rather rural Mississippi.

And how often do you hear about blacks killing other blacks today, in the hood, over disputes about their girlfriends being mildly sexually assaulted? How often do you hear about an all-black jury letting a violent offender go free? When the academic studies came out showing that black juries discriminate against white defendants and vice versa doesn’t happen, did you even read that anywhere? Was it reported nationally by NYT? In any case, in 1955 the black homicide rate was 10x higher than the White, and if you looked at how they lived you’d probably categorize it as a ghetto colloquially.

The idea that the American mainstream media in 1955 was trying to indoctrinate people in some sort of anti-white feeling is so evidently ludicrous that it ought to cause you to doubt everything else in coffee_enjoyer's post.

It's not called the "long march through the institutions" for nothing.

There were already communist influences in the press and investigations on this in 1955, the NYTimes alone getting dozens of subpoenas, the same newspaper that immediately started reporting on Till:

https://time.com/archive/6799287/the-press-eastland-v-the-times/

Communists in 1955 had specific plans to agitate about the Emmet Till case:

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/research/online-documents/civil-rights-emmett-till-case/1955-11-22-hoover-to-anderson.pdf

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/research/online-documents/civil-rights-emmett-till-case/1955-09-29-memo-re-lynching.pdf

Their plan in 1954 was to agitate Blacks against the anti-communists: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/political-affairs/1954-10-33-10-political-affairs.pdf

Literal communists in 1955:

Negro press have sounded the alarm. If this important struggle is to be won, however, the Communist Party, and the American Left, in the first place, must be fully mobilized

Now, in 1955, it’s possible that their explicit intention was not to be anti-white as much as to rile up Blacks in a way that makes them hate White people. But who knows?

This is a bait-and-switch. You posited a specifically anti-white agenda, and now you're presenting evidence that communists supported the case.

But obviously communism is a different issue to anti-whiteness.

That's not what he said. His argument is that they were trying to indoctrinate people against white racism and the indoctrination escaped containment over the years and ended up becoming indoctrination against whiteness.

If so, it's a bit odd that he immeditely bit the bullet, isn't it?

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