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.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of white girls raped with the assistance of their own government... between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 girls age 11-17 in the affected cities

Hopefully you get a response in before the inevitable ban - what is the evidence for this claim? As far as I know the usual estimate is closer to 1,400. It's pretty clear that 200,000 white girls would be way more than 1 in 6 girls age 11-17 in Rotherham (population 100k) and other cities.

I seem to remember you had great doubts about death toll estimations due to the Holocaust, so I hope that you went over these numbers with similar scrutiny.

I also don't believe his numbers, but apparently there were child rape gangs (aka, "grooming gangs") in many other cities besides Rotherham.

I did some calculations on this back in August elsewhere, so I might as well finish the job and present a model using demographic data from here.

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.

TL;DR between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 is reasonable for Rotherham. As for the whole country, that gets harder. How do you extrapolate Rotherham to the rest of the country to get an upper bound worst case scenario? Probably via demographics? Rotherham has 60 convictions and therefore 23 victims per perpetrator. It's population is 15.5% Asian, which isn't all Pakistani Muslim, but that group is probably around 10% of the population, so ~7,150 people. So about 1 in 120 of this demographic are perpetrators. The total Pakistani Muslim population of the UK is 1.6m, so if everywhere is as bad as Rotherham, there would be about 13,300 perpetrators and 300,000 victims. So I'd say the claim of "hundreds of thousands" is at least within the bounds of plausibility but a million is right out. This all has the caveat that it's entirely reliant on applying current demographic numbers to crimes that, as so far investigated, were largely carried out in the 90s and 00s. If the gangs are an ongoing problem, or if the Pakistani population in Rotherham was far smaller in the 90s, then the numbers change a lot.

Up to 1 Million Girls total in the UK according to one Labour MP, but most estimates put it between 100k and 500k.

Rotherham was 1400 girls alone, and there have been dozens if not hundreds of similar gangs across the UK, many of which are still being covered up.

The 1 in 6 or 1 in 3 is taking the 1400 confirmed Rotherham rapes, applying it to the female 0-17 population of 24k, then subtracting out muslim girls (who do get raped by family but aren't included in the phenomenon of gang crime), the girls who are too young... And then apply a bell curve of ages effected.

So over 1 in 16 just by numbers (1400 out of 24000 girls under 17) , about 1 in 10-12 by ethnicity down to white girls, and then once you start narrowing it down to white girls 11-17, the targeted demographic, you get somewhere around 1 in 6, or 1 in 3 at the peak years, and depending on how many girls who were found dead of overdoses or never spoke of it you think were victimized.

As far as I can tell that labor MP basically made that number up based on nothing in particular.

most estimates put it between 100k and 500k.

Which estimates are these

The 1 in 6 or 1 in 3 is taking the 1400 confirmed Rotherham rapes

The 1 in 6 and 200k numbers you quoted were not restricted to Rotherham alone (there are not enough people in Rotherham for 200k girls to be raped). What is the relationship between "1 in 6" and "hundreds of thousands"?

Haven’t found hundreds of thousands yet but 20,000 official reported cases in 2018-2019 alone.

Assume at least that many cases again unreported, and account for increased migration and some number of new victims a year, and I think you could get to 100,000 pretty easily.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-child-sex-abuse-exploitation-rotherham-rochdale-police-a9215261.html

Concerning, but I don't think that it's quite the same as OP's claim. Presumably not every girl that gets groomed (I couldn't find the definition they are using here) actually gets raped. There's also this line which makes me think that I don't understand what they are measuring:

In high-profile cases such as Rotherham and Rochdale, perpetrators have been much older than their victims, but police say peer-on-peer abuse by teenagers from the same school or area is more common in some areas.

In what sense can a child "groom" a peer? Or is that just a vanishingly small number of cases? I guess we'll have to wait for some kind of official report.

Your 16 year old Pakistani 'boyfriend' can groom you into child prostitution as easily as his 'much older' uncle or father.

The terminology of "grooming" is confusing here. It implies they were getting too friendly with these girls on discord and maybe sharing explicit links with them. Reading wikipedia all the accounts given are just straight up rape. I can only read this as deliberate obfuscation

No they would groom them using the standard methods. Offer them food, alcohol, drugs and attention. Posing as "boyfriends" at first before coercing them into more and more extreme behaviors. Blackmailing them with those previous acts and threats to them and family. It's a tried and tested method across the world for those grooming vulnerable young people into prostitution (which is what most of these gangs were doing).

Grooming is the term we would use in social care at the time. Remember this started in the 80's and onward. The grooming term used in the online era is derived from the terms we used at the time for the more "old school" methods. But the initial context for almost all these girls was luring them in to what they thought was a relationship before then taking advantage of that. That's why grooming is the correct term. A gang which simply outright kidnapped girls off the street would be picked up much more quickly.

We usually call it date rape, but the actual difference between being taken advantage of by an age peer and being taken advantage of by a grown man is not really one of the behavior in use.

Look at the Wikipedia page for the Rotherham scandal, though. Even on Wikipedia, you can see how much under-reporting and mis-reporting still occurs. You’re never going to get a good source saying X many girls were tortured and raped by Pakistani gangs. They will use euphemisms like ‘grooming’, they will misdescribe the perpetrators or hide the number in some other category wherever possible, they will refuse to count anything without definitive proof that can’t be explained away.

1 in 3 or 1 in 6 is obviously wrong but 100,000 in a country of 60,000,000 seems entirely plausible to me.

In what sense can a child "groom" a peer?

It’s entirely possible for an 18 year old teenager to recruit a 14 year old girl, either for himself or older relatives.

Look at the Wikipedia page for the Rotherham scandal, though. Even on Wikipedia, you can see how much under-reporting and mis-reporting still occurs.

This is actually an extreme improvement from the state of the page a few months ago, when they attempted to cobble together a narrative that the whole thing was a racist hoax (the page got renamed "grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom" and rewritten to match). It stood that way for several months before people started to take notice and they quietly changed it back without admitting fault.

In what sense can a child "groom" a peer? Or is that just a vanishingly small number of cases? I guess we'll have to wait for some kind of official report.

If "grooming" is the authorities' way of saying "raping", it makes perfect sense

No matter how you slice it, this is clearly measuring something beyond the central case of Pakistani men rapping teenage girls en masse.

1 in 6 in the most affected cities.

Which cities?

Rotherham

I already posted a breakdown of the city in reply to you.

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

So 1 in 6 is just in Rotherham. Okay, that seems correct (though I wish you had said "affected city" to be more exact) and has nothing to do with the "hundreds of thousands" figure.

Where is "hundreds of thousands" coming from? Clearly that's not just Rotherham, so where is this number from?

There were Dozens if not hundreds of cities that had Grooming gangs like this, Rotherham is simply the most famous.

There are only 55 cities in England. Rotherham isn't even one of them. There are barely 150 towns OR cities the size of Rotherham or bigger. Unless you are thinking places like Bury St Edmonds which have a total of about 100 male adult Muslims has 25% of that population being in grooming gangs, there simply cannot be hundreds of places like this. Your understanding of the scale of England is clearly terrible.

Dozens if not hundreds of cities

Can you give list of 100 such cities?

So where is the number from?

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