site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25581 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.

Very meagre for a top-level comment, I know, but I felt it was worth sharing because it's peak culture war: it turns out the sole holdout in the Lindsay Clancy case was a Black man.

(For those living under a rock: Lindsay Clancy was the woman who killed her three young children, pleaded non guilty on the basis that she suffered from post partum psychosis, and the murder trial ended in a mistrial because only 1 out of 12 jury member found her guilty.)

I think this revelation will end the debate about whether the jury failed to reach the right verdict. Although ostensibly the discussion revolved around what level of proof was provided (Massachussets has an unusually low bar for insanity defenses, in that the prosecutor must prove that the defendant was capable of discerning right from wrong beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the defense proving their client was incapable at least to the level of preponderance of evidence, as is the case in most jurisdictions.)

In practice, the issue seemed to be mostly framed in terms of identity politics, along the lines of “mistrial caused by obstinate man who refused to listen to reasonable majority of mostly women”. Substitute “black man” and “white women” and this loses its cachet: suddenly it reads like a proud person of color bravely standing up against a group of Karens trying to browbeat him into submission.

I think this revelation will end the debate about whether the jury failed to reach the right verdict.

I wish I had your faith. I think the self-interest and entitlement of liberal women will mean they don't budge an inch. Middle class white women continue to be the main beneficiaries of DEI despite other groups being ostensibly ranked above them on the oppression totem -- that is to say they're higher ranked only on paper.

Liberal White Women have always folded to the rest of the Progressive Stack, including Black Men. The only cohorts they're able to put up a fight against is White and/or Asian Men.

Why the difference with Asian Men? Are they counted as Whites?

No, that would be silly. Maybe you can find some Twitter randos claiming as such - there's 8.5 billion or so people on Earth, and seemingly twice that many Twitter accounts, so I wouldn't be shocked if you could - but no, Asian men aren't white. They just aren't included, as a rule, in the Progressive Stack.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the Oppression Olympics are rigously defined, and subject to serious analysis, and for that matter, don't make the mistake of thinking they evolved organically, ground-up. The system decided it was in its interest to "Believe Women," when the target was "White Men*" but not when it came to "Black and Brown Bodies." Women aren't leaders, and won't be the ones making the call on who counts. As Orwell noted in 1984, women are the most ruthless enforcers of the rules, but they don't make them. They're** not going to go hard on this guy unless the system tells them he's fair game, that they won't be accused of "doing a racism" if they do.

*"White Men" being primarily men not in capital-P "Power," primarily (and especially) Red Tribe men, not literally every man of Caucasian descent. **Again, this is in the main; doubtless there'll be some women going off the reservation on Twitter, but not in numbers to matter, and they'll catch hell for doing so).

For some time now, for the purposes of the progressive stack, Asians have become white. Though sometimes not white, or extra white, depending on the context.

Basically similar to Jews.

Do you think white women get a bigger boost than blacks in affirmative action? Look at test scores at elite institutions and who is getting the biggest bump and disabuse yourself of this obviously incorrect leftist talking point. There would be almost 0 black men there without AA and DEI.

It's not that white women score the most diversity points, so much as the demand for racial diversity exceeds supply, so the white women end up actually filling most of the diversity hires/admits. "Woman-led" isn't as good as "bipoc-led," but it's better than letting white and asian guys run the show. A lot of the sinecures designed for black people end up going to white women when there aren't enough black people to hit the quota. And with things like college admissions, women already have a leg-up because of how female-biased primary and secondary enducation is, so even a relatively modest DEI bump can become a madsive advantage. This is especially true because being a woman has zero correlation with generational poverty, and so you have all these applicants with the same resources and social connections as white men, but who also get to take advantage of a bunch of programs originally intended to help the poor and disenfranchised.

Also, there are a lot of resources available to assist "minorities" (often explicitly including women) that give additional preference to racial minorities on paper, but still require jumping through a bunch of complicated bureaucratic hoops that, in reality, serve as a barrier actually underprivileged peoole struggle to surmount. Technically eligible (but extremely non-central examples of the type the programs were intended to help) middle class white women, on the other hand, are famously proficient in paperwork, and take advantage of the programs at very high rates.

This just says to me that black people don't take advantage of the easy opportunities afforded to them, and non-black women do.

And why are privileged women able to shamelessly exploit the system without their conscience stopping them? Where does that predisposition (and societal acceptance of it) come from?

I think the self-interest and entitlement of liberal women will mean they don't budge an inch.

I do agree with this. Blacks who are seen as on the side of the enemy, black conservatives being the most famous case, do not get treated nicely.

Middle class white women continue to be the main beneficiaries of DEI despite other groups being ostensibly ranked above them on the oppression totem

What do you mean by this? What the numbers I’ve seen, affirmative action boosts white women individually less than other groups, like black women. Is it a case where, in aggregate, white women benefit the most or their cultural preferences are the most dominant?

What do you mean by this?

On aggregate, just by sheer numbers, and also I think iirc they attain the highest level roles from it? It's a vague memory of something I read years ago. I didn't file it away for later.

The amount of preference they get is less, but their access to the preferences is greater. They have the same access to wealth and power that the evil white men oppressing everyone have, but also have access to gibs.

It's the same as how all the black people in elite universities are either the children of rich American alumni or rich Africans on student visas, with vanishingly few that you could fairly describe as coming from underprivileged backgrounds. Affirmative action mostly helps people who are already privileged but qualify for the gibs on a technicality.

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