site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25573 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 7, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But more to the point, I think you are not speaking the same language of the right. They see the granted citizenship as an entitlement; not a right.

Does anyone think that an ethnically English Aussie granted UK citizenship would fall under the same danger of being deported as a Pakistani for these people? Or an East German from non-German lands? Or do you think that these nationalists would consider it equally legitimate to strip these groups of citizenship?

Of course not. Citizenship is still a right, what's being debated is whether it is a particular ethnic right (for Jews in Israel, Germans in Germany, etc.) and thus any foreigner granted citizenship is not a "real" citizen in the same sense that they are and can be disenfranchised.

Given that naturalization of non-ethnic majority peoples predates these waves of mass migration, it is a redefinition of the term. And it is radical.

Does anyone think that an ethnically English Aussie granted UK citizenship would fall under the same danger of being deported as a Pakistani for these people?

The most likely scenario seems that "these people" (Reform? AfD?) would enact fascially-neutral laws to deport, say, convicted violent or sex criminals. That such laws would have a disparate impact on your English-descent Aussie and a Pakistani seems to follow from a lot of data discussed here regularly. I doubt even most of "these people" would support anything strictly based on ethnicity.

And that just gets you back to the Culture War: see left-leaning judges lowering sentences or dropping charges to avoid deportation thresholds, or the State in Rotherham looking the other way at violent sex crimes for years.

Of course it is ethnic. The whole argument is that it is ethnic. And it is only radical if you start the clock forty to fifty years ago. It was the norm well before the.

Except that non-dominant ethnic citizenship was already a thing. Jews, for example, could be citizens. The "branch grafted on the tree of Israel" model was a thing.

What is new now is that people will simply reject the centrality of the "native" ethnic group and the idea that there needs to be a dominant "trunk" of "native" citizens. Instead the claim is that there's no coherent complaint if London is majority non-English because those are citizens. This is not a thing past cultures would accept, but the idea of a non-German/Englishman being a citizen and having the rights of citizens is not new.

In any case, if it's been the case for the entirety of the current iteration of the state in places where the state has fallen and been reconfigured multiple times (Germany) it's still radical.

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