site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   33075 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.

The right-wing rehabilitation of South Africa bears a resemblance to the rehabilitation of Hitler among some on the right.

I mean its the same need that drives communists to insist the modern CCP is definitely a legitimate extension of the socialist project. People who believe in failed ideologies need something to cling to.

Is it failed? Is SA better off today as opposed to in 1990? Is Europe better off today (or in 2021) compared to 2000?

Most modern western communists hate the CCP for selling out. If they sympathize with China it’s, as with their Russian sympathies, because of anti-western “anti-imperialist” politics more than anything else.

Actual full support for the modern CCP is limited to a subset of Marxist-Leninists, including actual Maoists.

Look around the falling European Union that’s rapidly islamifying and witnessing a rapid decline in quality of life. I mean, rape gangs are kind of a red pill on the whole thing.

The right simply has to point out that liberalism is brining about a decline in health, safety, freedom, and standards of living. Everywhere. Liberals have to keep coming up with excuses as to why it keeps happening.

So far, in many countries, Liberals can also still simply point out that Liberalism is the law, and you're stepping outside of it by suggesting that Islam, Immigration or Social Progress (TM) is a problem.

Making criticism of liberalism illegal: How liberal is that? Which state first made “hate speech” a crime again?

In much of Europe, the police are more keen to arrest people who criticize Refugees especially Islamic ones, and speak against trans no matter the context. In liberal countries where there’s more protection for free speech, the punishment mostly comes down to being black listed and fired.

I feel like this image sums up European policing pretty well

/images/17414671084180462.webp

I understand neither the preceding comment, nor this one apparently agreeing with it. Thirty years ago wrongthinkers all knew that South Africa was a generation or two away from becoming Just Another African Shithole, and they've been very visibly proven correct on that point.

Where's the need for rehabilitation? Where even is the substantial disagreement? Is anyone out there still hopeful for the future of the Rainbow Nation? I was under the impression that we had long since reached the point where the forces of goodness and tolerance mumble some excuses and look away.

Many of those same wrongthinkers also had very low IQ estimates for places like Malaysia (and, a couple of decades earlier, even China) that genuinely have seen huge economic development and increases in population prosperity since then, though.

There were Asian examples of successful societies at the time, though(at least Japan and probably also Singapore depending on the exact era). Where is the example of a successful black society? AFAIK they all have non-black minorities which perform critical roles in making their society successful.

(and, a couple of decades earlier, even China)

source?

Many of those same wrongthinkers also had very low IQ estimates for places like Malaysia (and, a couple of decades earlier, even China) that genuinely have seen huge economic development and increases in population prosperity since then, though.

Okay, but so what? Is some of that incorrectness going to rub off on South Africa and reverse its inevitable decline into shitholery? All this tells me is that it's possible to refute the wrongthinkers, but some groups just don't seem capable of doing so.

What are these very low IQ estimates?

I thought the early estimates were something like 85 and we've now moved to something like 88-90, which is on par for estimates of Sicilians and some 10 points ahead of India. That does not seem like a massive change, nor constitute an estimate of 'very low IQ'.

I was under the impression that we had long since reached the point where the forces of goodness and tolerance mumble some excuses and look away.

It's probably like HBD that way. The intellectual elite knows its true even if they'll never admit it. But normies are 20 years behind. Know any liberal boomers? Ask them what they think about South Africa. Now keep in mind that America is mostly still run by liberal boomers.

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