site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   20433 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So here is a macabre tragicomedy that happened in Tuscon, Arizona:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/01/tucson-police-gay-bar-shooting

The suspect, identified by police as 44-year-old Ousman Ceesay, allegedly killed 42-year-old Vincent Anthony Siqueiros and 33-year-old Cameron Davis Capara. “After confronting Mr Siqueiros and Mr Capara, the suspect shot them. There is no known active threat to the community. The suspect was in possession of a note with several LGBTQIA+ associated businesses written on it. Tucson police chief Monica Prieto said in a statement: “We recognize this incident may cause fear and pain within our community. Tucson is, and always has been, a diverse community where people of different backgrounds, identities and experiences call this city home. We are committed to ensuring every member of our community feels safe, valued and welcomed.” “This tragedy serves as yet another painful reminder that homophobia is still rampant in our country. We must implement smarter policies to prevent mass shootings and keep our communities safe. Easy access to firearms and Arizona’s weak gun safety laws continue to put all of us at risk,” Romero added.

What is omitted in the article is that one of the victims was very active in the Pro Palestine movement. The perp is from Gambia which is 90+ percent Muslim.

What is interesting is how an such an event is absolutely not making any news. I know that this is extremely contested match in the oppression Olympics - but it seems to me that the mainstream media has decided to bury such stories, even though they happen way more often.

What is interesting is how an such an event is absolutely not making any news. I know that this is extremely contested match in the oppression Olympics - but it seems to me that the mainstream media has decided to bury such stories, even though they happen way more often.

Yeah, from what I understand, hate crime attacks against gay and trans people tend to be perpetrated by blacks and/or Muslims. In fact I am a little surprised that the Guardian provided the name of the alleged shooter and didn't simply refer to him as an "Arizona man."

But anyway, I tend to go with Steve Sailer's idea that there is a "coalition of the fringes" and these types of incidents need to be downplayed (or deflected) in order to keep the coalition together.

In the case of black hate crimes against the alphabet soup, these are mostly not actual hate crimes- they're interpersonal disputes with annoying people used to using their identities as a shield, one of whom has a culture that glorifies low level personal violence.

In the case of black hate crimes against the alphabet soup, these are mostly not actual hate crimes-

FWIW I was referring to actual hate crimes in the sense that the victim genuinely is being targeted due to their being gay, trans etc.

Don’t get me started. Here’s 90 percent of “hate crimes”:

  1. An African American homeless man and a Hispanic homeless man get in a shoving match over who gets this particular corner of skid row for their cardboard box.
  2. During the fight, the African American man calls the one tramp a “spic” and the Hispanic man calls the other tramp a “nigger”
  3. Now this misdemeanor bum fight is a federal hate crime and both the poor bastards are facing five years in federal prison instead of the three days in jail they deserve.

Don’t get me started. Here’s 90 percent of “hate crimes”:

For whatever reason, this discussion has turned into a semantic argument over how the phrase "hate crime" should be interpreted. Which is an interesting question, and I am certainly open to the possibility that the concept of a hate crime is overbroad.

That being said, my point is narrower. I am saying that in the West, when a gay person is targeted because that person is gay; or if a trans person is targeted because that person is trans, there is a significantly better than otherwise random chance that the attacker was black or Muslim. To be clear, I don't have any statistics to back this up, it's just based on my general observations and common sense.

A likely example of the type of crime I have in mind is the crime which is under discussion here, i.e. a shooting at a gay bar and the alleged perpetrator is apparently in possession of a list of gay-oriented businesses.

I’m sorry, I actually had meant to reply to another poster, and I was mostly trying got vent my spleen. The incident you described does sound much more like the type of incident one would think of as a hate crime.

five years

It looks like the statute says ten years.

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