site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 9, 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.

Yes, I would also like a competent right wing government and I was a Desantis supporter in 2024. But that choice was not on the ballot.

Your comment implied that it was desirable that the Democrats won, even if that means increasing immigration. That would seem to indicate that either you are a left winger who supports immigration or that you think it's good that the left won to "teach the right a lesson". That latter attitude is indeed a form of accelerationism.

A third interpretation is that you are mostly rightist but believe the Trump administration is so corrupt that even a leftist, open borders Democratic administration is preferable. But are you not considering that the Democrats are also corrupt, in fact much more corrupt in terms of dollars wasted?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. This was always going to be the outcome with Trump. So it’s best to just get on with it. He is maximally polarizing, corrupt, and incompetent with a hard cap on his national popularity so the left sweeping into power was baked into the cake.

I think Trump has done a lot more good than bad and we are in a better place because of him, but it is time to move on. I wish the Senate hadn’t gone so poorly, but that is just more evidence MAGA has to go. We have to live in reality. He’s not the guy, and if he wasn’t going to step aside, then him being discredited is a necessary evil. If it wasn’t a blowout now, 2028 would have been even worse. Maybe we can still keep the presidency if he gets out of the way. That is the white pill. Probably not though, and if that happens it’s 100% on him.

Thank you for the clarification. I did misunderstand you and I agree with your assessment.

My ideal would be Abbott 2032, sacrificial lamb in '28. He's effective, smart, good at politics, and seems to actually care about second order effects. I do not care about demographics as long as me and mine aren't discriminated against- although I have an aesthetic attachment to phenotypical Europeans, we're not going extinct anytime soon and have stabler demographics than any other group.

But that's not going to happen. He lost, and he's in a wheelchair. As an all powerful veep he's plausible. As a powerful domestic policy role he's plausible. I guess it's Desantis.

You can’t sacrifice 2028 because immigration is cumulative and the most conservative Supreme Court we will ever see in our lifetimes just voted 6-3 against repealing birthright citizenship. You can never remove anyone, certainly not anyone’s children, and remember the president can admit unlimited (yes, unlimited) legal refugees without. congressional approval.

Again, I am not a white nationalist. I care about the rights of social conservatives to continue to exist, a sane macroeconomic environment, and keeping the government out of my business personally. All of those would take more than a single democrat admin to destroy.

If my neighbors are all mestizos its fine.

I do not care about demographics as long as me and mine aren't discriminated against-

And that's why you must care about demographics. You'll find that racial tolerance is quite rare among non-Europeans.

While moral universalism is highest and ingroup bias is lowest among Western Europeans, I think that’s a too strong comment. Most African states have quite a diversity of ethnic groups. Most middle eastern states, India, and much of Southeast Asia involves societies where different meaningful ancestry groups coexist. Latin America has very meaningful colorblind cultural currents, and in many cases they are dominant.

I think racial masochism is also a bit complicated since it’s often a mix of genuine outgroup preference with wanting to stick it to “other white people I don’t like.” When blue tribe is muzzled, or is marginal like in many even minimally white Latino countries, race relations are a lot better.

Most African states have quite a diversity of ethnic groups.

Quite; may God grant us the stability and peace of Africa inshallah.

There was a time when it was rare among those of European extraction. They learned to be better; the rest of Adam's progeny can do it too.

(This is one of my pet peeves with the ctrl-left; Persons Of Colour ought not be excluded or held to a higher standard, but they ought to adhere to the same standards as a white person!)

They would say they are held to the same standard, adjusted for privelege.

And the alt-right would say that they're holding the more melaniniferous to the same standard, adjusted for genetic potential-for-regression-to-the-mean/descent from the pre-colonial peoples of Europe or colonial founders elsewhere/&c.

Both arguments are bollocks; the set of things a black person can get away with ought to be strictly coterminous with the set of things a white person can get away with; neither should be a single iota larger or smaller than the other.

I think so too which is why I think we need a 50 year moratorium on most immigration so that assimilation and ethnogenesis can happen.

Singapore seems pretty harmonious. Everyone being well-off tends to reduce animosity. You only start seeking scapegoats when you have something to scapegoat them for.

Yes, Singapore is a good of example of how to manage a wealthy, diverse country. It works in part because of authoritarianism, explicit racial carve outs, and a stable balance between the major ethnic groups. They don't have jury trials in Singapore because Lee Kwan Yew recognized that it was impossible due to ethnic fragmentation.

It would not work with lax law enforcement and unconstrained immigration like we have in the U.S.

The U.S. worked extremely well as a 90% white country. We're going to have to figure out how to thrive when that's no longer the case. Singapore is a good model, but Brazilian chaos is more likely.

But non-Europeans invariably hate each other more than whites.

True although Europeans have more wealth to steal. Whites will face discrimination in all cases because, uniquely, they discriminate against themselves. The best scenario, therefore, is to reduce the number of takers on the other end. Affirmative action was no big deal when whites were 90%. It’s a huge deal for young people today when the diversity slots fill up most the available places.

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