site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16690 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 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 as far as DNA is essentially Code then people who share DNA are likely to behave in the same way and if the fathers program does murder it is likely Sons code will do murder. Etc.

I pose to you the same question I've posed to 6tjk, hanikrummihundursvin and a few others on this forum.

Do you believe that I should care about who's someone father is more than I should care whether that person shares my interests or wants me dead?

Why do I have to choose between your conditions? It’s not an either/or.

I can care about someone’s genetic makeup and care if they share my interests or want me dead.

Isn’t your question obviously a false conundrum?

I supported Pinochet killing communists and I am anti-immigration of bad genetic fits.

Public polling shows non-whites and in fact every non-white race on net being against traditional liberalism. A persons father is a great predictor for whether they will be against your interests.

You're wrong.

It is in fact "an either/or" because when push comes to shove a person can only have one top priority.

So I pose the question again, do you really believe that I should care more about who's someone father is than whether that person shares my interests?

I reject your question. I’m NOT that stupid. I can in fact walk and chew gum at the same time. I don’t choke on gum when I try to walk and die.

Being that I am in fact a real person with some functional ability (however limited) I can both be racists and anti-communists at the same time which is essentially what you are proposing.

If I want to quickly model what makes a country rich it’s basically be heavily white/Asian and be not communists.

But just for fun If I had to choose someone from my race or someone with the right beliefs whose Haitian I am choosing my race. Bill Ackman’s daughter says she learned to love communism at Harvard. We can fix her and we can fix her children. So I’ll take that person everyday.

I am in fact a real person with some functional ability (however limited) I can both be racists and anti-communists at the same time

For sure, but if you were forced to choose between being racist and being anti-communist which would it be?

But just for fun If I had to choose someone from my race or someone with the right beliefs whose Haitian I am choosing my race. Bill Ackman’s daughter says she learned to love communism at Harvard. We can fix her and we can fix her children. So I’ll take that person everyday.

Well given what I just asked I appreciate you having the courage to put that on the record but in case it wasn't already obvious, I am taking the opposite track, if given the choice between a capitalist country with a substantial black and brown population and a communist country with an almost exclusively White and Asian population I am choosing the former without hesitation.

Harvard Delenda Est

A black and brown majority capitalist country does not exists. It’s a fiction that doesn’t exists.

And then America you claim to want was built and created with all its institutions when it was 88% white.

A black and brown majority capitalist country does not exists. It’s a fiction that doesn’t exists.

The Index of Economic Freedom does show a pretty obvious geographic correlation.

But "doesn't exists" is still wrong. We can still go down the index and find Cabo Verde (roughly 2/3 Creole/Mulatto, 1/3 Black, 1% unmixed European heritage) and Barbados (90+% Black, 3.5% White) within spitting distance of the United States, plus Chile (roughly 2/3 Mestizo, 1/3 White) a bit higher than the US.

And there are also outliers in the other direction, leading to greater overlap. If instead of the US we take the level of economic freedom in Hungary (still 92% Hungarian White, most of the rest other-European ancestry, with 3.4% Romani as the biggest arguable-outlier) as par, that's now surpassed by 4 more Caribbean countries (3 super-majority Black, the other super-majority mixed) and 4 Central American countries, and 2 out of the 3 South American countries surpassing it are super-majority Mestizo. We can count MENA as a subcategory of White, but that'll still leave us with 5 sub-Saharan African non-White countries (2 mostly-Creole island nations, 3 supermajority-Black nations on the continent) beating Hungary.

There's room to argue about the Heritage Foundation's metric for economic freedom, but bear in mind I'm already spotting you a lot of handicap here by defining "capitalist" as "more economically free than Hungary", much less "more economically free than the US". The list of seriously non-capitalist countries these days is like 6 entries long, and three of the "communist" countries on it still have stock markets, two of them big ones.

IMO Wikipedia has Chile in most studies as majority Europeans. But as an outlier it’s mostly free because a European tortured and killed tens of thousands and then basically agreed to quit doing that if those reforms were largely locked in.

I don’t love yougov for polling but whites are the only group over 50% on capitalism and the only group with a negative favorability of socialism.

So sure maybe there are some exceptions. But a European needs to step in a murder a bunch of people in Chile’s case to do freedom isn’t a great exception.

I’ve seen other polling with negative views on all of the core American values recently.

I didn't say anything about a "brown majority" and even if I did it would be a mere hypothetical. The America I want wasn't built and created on the basis of being "88% white" the America I want was built was built and created on the basis of being 88% Christian.

Mexico is 88% + Christian. Zambia, DR Congo, Rwanda, Republic of Congo are all 88% + Christian. Gary, Indian is 88% black and doesn’t have electricity. Plenty of shithole countries that have your beliefs but the wrong demographics.

Meanwhile I can just go chill in leftist havens in New England with the right demographics that are heaven.

Gary, Indian is 88% black and doesn’t have electricity.

By yesterday the number of remaining customers without power was down to 863 from the peak of 374,500; when I check today it's at 113.

Two weeks of major outages (including a full week for the majority of Gary) is pretty awful, and some population factors did contribute a little to that, but I think the main culprit was clearly the "at least three (3) confirmed tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, extreme straight-line winds, and flooding". When "Straight-linewind speeds reached up to ninety-nine (99) miles per hour near Gary, Indiana", that was effectively the peak wind force of a Category 2 Hurricane.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last instance I can find of a Cat 2 hurricane making landfall in a majority-white area (super-majority white, as it happened) was the (ironically named in this context?) Hurricane Juan. In addition to the 8 dead and $200M of damage, Wiki recalls that "Nova Scotia power reported that they had restored power to the last of their affected customers by October 12, 2 weeks after the storm had passed."

More comments

You want to talk about "shitholes"? Louisiana is over 30% black and still manages to have a higher GDP per Capita than most of Europe.

You say you're "anti-immigration of bad genetic fits."

I am both anti-immigration and pro-deportation of anyone who isn't going to join me in standing for the national anthem at a baseball game.

We are not the same.

More comments

That question presupposes that a) those two things are orthogonal, and b) that you know the answers to the latter queries. If you don't, and if lineage correlates to interests and aggression, then who someone's father is can be eminently worth caring about.

That question presupposes that a) those two things are orthogonal,

Are you trying to suggest that a "white man" would never wish death upon another "white man"? If I "pressupose" i do so with ample reason. Nor do I believe that you can extract more accurate answers to the latter queries from the color of one's skin thai I can from context clues like how someone speaks, how they dress, and to what God or gods they pray too.

So as with Opt-Out I pose the question again, do you really believe that I should care more about who's someone father is than whether that person shares my interests?

In the nicest possible way, you seem to be aggressively working to misunderstand the point.

Nor do I believe that you can extract more accurate answers to the latter queries from the color of one's skin

than I can from context clues

I am saying, and the point is very clear, that the colour of one's skin and other matters of parentage is a big context clue.

The only context clue worth paying attention to? No, obviously. More relevant at some times than others, depending on the availability of other context? Yes, obviously. But you seem to be so offended by the statement of an obvious fact that you reach immediately for attempted gotchas that don't make sense.

And "in the nicest possible way" you seem to be tying yourself in knots to avoid answering the question.

It's only a "gotcha" if you think you might be in the wrong.

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

  • Deuteronomy 24:16

No, obviously. [Sometimes relevant], depending on the availability of other context? Yes, obviously.

I answered the question above and you ignored it. No, it is stupid to care about whether someone's daddy was a gangbanger if they are currently pointing a gun at you. You no longer need to calculate their likely propensity for violence and aggression, because you are currently discovering it for yourself. Would have been pretty good for you if you'd had the wit to think about these things in advance but, hey, too late now. Empricism, baby.

If you have ground truth information, you don't need prediction. If you know somebody well, and you know he's a great guy, you have no reason for caring about his parentage. If you are, say, devising an immigration strategy, or whether to trust somebody you don't know well, or predicting the behaviour of a group of people, then you need lots of context and throwing some of the most predictive information it is possible to obtain on principle is stupid.

@JeSuisCharlie is right and you are a stupid peepee doodoo head

  • Deutoronomy

Oh, well. That's me told, then, eh?

If you have ground truth information, you don't need prediction.

I agree and yet I have seen 6tjk Opt-out (and for a moment as it appeared you) argue otherwise. The question was a bit of High Energy Particle Ethics intended to cut through all the hedging and the bullshit to get at what you truly believe.

Then I apologise for the sarcasm. I admit I personally distrust such questions as a debate tool: in my opinion they only make sense from the questioner's viewpoint, so they end up coming across as 'have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no, don't evade the question' even when that is not intended.

What I suspect is actually happening is that people are factoring in reversion to the mean. If a girl's family are all obviously aggressive and mentally-ill, you should think very hard about having children with her even if you've known her long enough to know that she is genuinely darling because genetically the odds are good it won't turn out well.

The same to my mind applies to asylum seekers. Then you're dealing with complex group genetics but you still have to weigh the likelihood that a genuinely great guy might end up replicating the kinds of people and culture that they left to escape.

These are all fair points.

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