site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22d ago (text post)   26714 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 30, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

1 in 3 girls age 11-17 in the affected cities

Sometimes people around here drop a statistic or other quantifiable statement and it is immediately and obviously wrong. Like it is not in the correct order of magnitude or similar gross error. This is one.

No, 1 in 3 anglo girls in some cities were not raped by gangs of Pakis. If you have convincing evidence otherwise please share it.

I calculated it myself last August (while considering potential causes of our riots at the time, one of which was in Rotherham) and it is a reasonable approximation that 1 in 3 girls who lived in Rotherham while they were within the targeted age range would have been victims.

Rotherham the town has a population of 71,535. Of this, 20.5% are under 16, and the actual targeted age range was 11-16, so assuming that age distribution from 0 to 16 is even (reasonable, people move away after 16 for university), Rotherham has 5,500 people aged 11-16. Only females were targeted, so make that 2,250. And then only Whites, 78% of the population, were targeted, so 1,760. But as there were 1,400 victims over a 16 year period, that would have been enough for the demographic cohort to be replaced 2.7 times, so the actual size of the targeted population would have been 4,750. So if you were a 11-16 year old white female in Rotherham during this period, there was a 30% chance you would be gang-raped by Pakistani men, probably multiple times. That is not rare. To express this another way, even assuming each victim was only attacked once, this corresponds to a sexual assault rate of 4,971 per 100,000 for this demographic. Compare to the worst city-level homicide rates in the world, which struggle to exceed 100 per 100,000.

Thanks for the math. Some googling largely supports the numbers you state.

I'd quibble about the 16 years since some sources claim that there are victims going far back as the 1970s. I can't find victim numbers in a clearly defined time window to validate this. That 16 years might balloon into a much bigger number in order to count all the victims.

Are we sure all these victims are from the 70k people in the Rotherham town limits and not any of the 270k people in the surrounding area? I can't easily verify that and it could change the proportion by up to factor of 4 if we started counting people outside town limits.

How are anything around 1/6 young girls practically abandoned by their parents in this town? What horrible societal breakdown occurred to produce so many un-cared-for children? Googling a bit I see talk of Rotherham having low unemployment. Housing is relatively expensive. But it's not a ghetto.

The 16 years + 1,400 figure come from the same report, the Jay Inquiry, which estimated 1,400 over those 16 years. In other words, the length of time could be longer, but if it is the number of victims would go up.

Are we sure all these victims are from the 70k people in the Rotherham town limits and not any if thethe 270k people in the surrounding area?

The gang certainly operated within Rotherham town limits. The most likely alternative target in the surrounding area is not the rest of the borough (which gets rural) but instead Sheffield. No, we don't know.

How are anything around 1/6 young girls practically abandoned by their parents in this town? What horrible societal breakdown occurred to produce so many un-cared-for children? Googling a bit I see talk of Rotherham having low unemployment. Housing is relatively expensive. But it's not a ghetto.

This is a misunderstanding of UK class structure but I think is probably beyond the scope of what I can explain. Rotherham is actually extremely poor. Mostly bottom 10% of the country bad via "Index of Multiple Deprivation". It just doesn't show up in unemployment because in the UK you are either employed, briefly between jobs, or on some kind of scheme where you aren't employed but not unemployed either. The actual level of economic inactivity in the area is 28.7%, higher than the 21.2% average for England.

Math is off. 5500 people 11-16 over 16 years, would be 5500/6 = 916 x 16 eleven year olds over 16 years plus 916 x 5 12-16 year olds. So 916 x 21 / 2 x 0.78 = 7502 white girls. And then, 1400/7502 = 18.7%, a bit over 1/6. Though I remember reading somewhere that it wasn’t just white girls, so percentage would be a bit lower than this.

The second targeted demographic mentioned is usually travellers (i.e Roma), which gets lumped in with white in census data.

Did the police not perceive this as a threat to their own daughters? Are any of them on record?

https://www.themotte.org/post/1322/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/282955?context=8#context

See above

There are also several threads on this https://x.com/QuasLacrimas/status/1820110269101539376

One in Six is the most common number people use.

On what basis are you extrapolating this to the whole of the UK? London has ~4.5m white British people and yet far fewer of these incidents than Rotherham, a town of 70,000.

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