site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   30889 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 2025

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fruck is partially correct, but more so incorrect. I will be speaking on a personal level, because I come from MENA. Fruck is correct, in the sense that some of the lashing out stems from a sense of inferiority or ennui; however, Fruck attributes this to a fundamentally incorrect cause.

First of all, it is trivially true that Arab culture in general do not value hard work or being a provider. Is being a provider expected? Yes, especially in the upper classes. But in the lower classes, all manners of mediocrity, laziness, corruption and sloth are generally accepted; hard-work is not an arab virtue. It would be incorrect to say that these men feel insulted because they are being denied the opportunity to provide for themselves.

They are, however, insulted by their perceived inferiority. Arabs, and arab men especially, are driven by a need to have "face". They need to appear rich, and powerful. Women need to love them, men need to obey and respect them. It's also important to note that many arabs believe that they are culturally and genetically superior to everyone else. So, when an arab refugee ends up in Europe, the cognitive dissonance between how he perceives himself (strong, virile, powerful), and what he actually is, which is a ward of the state, produces these incoherent and violent actions. In fact, their presence in Europe might actually strengthen this tension. In the Middle East, arabs can at least be ignorant of their station, but once exposed to European standards, in an ironic twist, it might drive them to further extremes of supremacy.

Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the inferiority psycho-sexual complex arabs have towards whites. Can be seen in these reddit threads: here, here, and here. For reference, /r/muslimcorner is a place where young muslims talk and discuss islam. Notice the weird comparisons towards white people? Notice the subtexual resentment?

Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the inferiority psycho-sexual complex arabs have towards whites. Can be seen in these reddit threads: here, here, and here.

It's very funny that the first one is from a Pakistani because I've heard them and other non-Arab Muslims be accused of the exact same thing except toward Arabs.

It’s a skin tone / racial hierarchy thing until it gets to the Gulf Arabs (who are pretty tan), then it becomes about purported piousness and khaleeji superiority, birthplace of Islam etc.

I agree with this, and it matches my experience with Arab immigrants - especially the younger refugees - very well, having lived in Paris and now in Vienna. Especially in France, there was a constant sense of indignation among them and the word "disrespect" was used liberally whenever any entitlement didn't materialise. (By far the most outrageous recurrent example of this was them rudely approaching girls to hit on, and when told there was no interest, claiming they were disrespectful - a hilarious inversion of what was going on).

This begs the question - why would they even come here if they are so supremely sensitive and accept nothing but total slavish obsequiousness from the side of the state and population? I have trouble forming a theory of mind for these people, there seems to be a total lack of reflection around the most basic elements of social organisation : why would someone who doesn't work and lives off of foreign countries' welfare systems be respected? How can one perceive oneself as "strong, virile, powerful" after leaving behind one's homeland and sheepishly fabricating stories of persecution (i.e., being a weak victim) in order to gain asylum? Is it all just downstream from an extreme mix of chauvinism and anti-intellectualism?

Is it all just downstream from an extreme mix of chauvinism and anti-intellectualism?

Right on the money. I'd also add an immense amount of entitlement, but whether that comes before or after the chauvinism is a chicken and egg scenario.

Arabs aren't liberals; they're best modeled after WW1 era nationalists. Completely convinced of the superiority of their country and culture.

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