site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   31770 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think he was actually closer to the mark there. You can see the hypocrisy when someone like KulakRevolt, for example, is calling for all of England to be burned down over the Rotherham gangs, as if he doesn't hold promiscuous fatherless girls from the lower classes in utter contempt himself. When all your grievances are formulated around tribal affiliations, you can argue that it's okay when we do it and bad when they do it, but you can't argue that you genuinely care about young girls being mistreated, and that sort of gives the game away when you're trying to convince people they should be outraged at rape and grooming when your actual objective is to stir hatred against your alien outgroup.

If Kulak hated European maidens he wouldn't have constructed his entire identity on the worship thereof. I don't think this is a good example at all.

The idea that you can't really care about your ingroup if you wouldn't care about them if they weren't part of it is a dangerous nonsense.

I ask you, would you love your Mother if she wasn't your mother. And if you wouldn't, how dare you say you love her? It's absurd. Who we are and what relationships we have is important and meaningful. It is not and never has been morally neutral.

I hate this gnostic reduction of our essence to some abstract individual will with every fiber of my body.

The Rotherham girls are not his ingroup just because they're white. He constantly talks about what he thinks should happen to white people who are also not in his ingroup.

His feigned outrage over "European maidens" being besmirched by Muslims is because Muslims are doing the besmirching, not because he actually cares about victimized white girls. If it were Irish grooming gangs responsible, he might contrive some anti-Irish reason to wash the streets in blood (he's certainly flexible like that), but more likely he'd just find something despicable brown people are doing elsewhere.

I'll note that, by reputation at least, (often drug enabled)abuse and grooming of lower-on-the-totem-pole teenaged girls is a 'the purpose of the system is what it does' for Kulak's claimed ingroup of reconstructionist pagans.

I don't really intend to go experience reconstructionist paganism. It may well be a false stereotype- and frankly doesn't much affect my (extremely negative) opinion of either reconstructionist paganism or idiot teenagers who experiment with it. But Kulak doesn't seem very upset about it either way. Nor does he seem to care very much about war rapes by the Russian Army, for another example of white people doing this.

Yeah, that's my point. If anyone else was drugging and raping teenage girls (including teenage white girls), Kulak wouldn't care. He just wants to see bloodshed. Also, his recent Braveheart Viking Hells Angel Paganism schtick and telling all his right-wing r3tvrn Christian followers that their religion is fake, gay and Jewish, is almost as hilarious to me as the people who still think he's an OF girl.

Isn't he/they an MTF?

No lol, he just picked an anime avatar and now some of his twitter audience unbelievably think he’s a woman. I don’t think he’s even claimed to be, so it’s not even a grift, it’s just weird or very stupid people.

No.

This like complaining that a Muslim cares about the Umma even though he cares about his sect or tribe more.

How dare people have Ordo Amoris? Their care must reduce to one bit!

Obviously people have circles of concern. And obviously just because someone doesn't extend their total moral community to all of humanity or all of creation doesn't make them abnormal. On the contrary.

Multi level tribalism is a perfectly acceptable and eugenic human behavior, albeit with some much talked about drawbacks. It is not however reducible to nihilism or egoism.

I think you give too much credit. I don't believe people like that feel ordo amoris for anyone at all. It's not about concentric circles of affinity, it's about identifying an enemy and manufacturing a grievance. I might believe some people feel some faint amount of "ordo amoris" for distant white girls because they happen to be white, even if they otherwise hold them in contempt, but not when every other message is about how they're dirt. Oh, now you care because a Muslim touched them? No heat graph meme argument is going to make that convincing.

Well I believe that you don't give people enough credit because they're part of your outgroup and that your standards of what people are allowed caring about without being hypocritical are bad models of people's behavior and therefore functionally useless except as the very sort of grievance they denounce.

The idea that people feeling empathy for the plight of people who look like and feel like them is bad, empty or without meaning in some way is, I believe, one of the great sins of Western civilization. And I don't feel difficulty defending anybody who feels such feelings, wicked as they may be, far from me as they may be.

Indeed, insofar as humanism has any degree of visceral grounding, it springs from this feeling and cannot denounce it without sapping itself.

Well I believe that you don't give people enough credit because they're part of your outgroup

Fair. People who hype genocidal warfare are indeed part of my outgroup.

and that your standards of what people are allowed caring about without being hypocritical

I do not think you understand what my standards of what people are "allowed" to care about are.

The idea that people feeling empathy for the plight of people who look like and feel like them is bad, empty or without meaning

This not what I believe.

Is your objection merely that people recommend violence as an answer to things that are not in their most intimate circle of concern? Because whilst I can understand the sentiment, I don't really see that as particularly worthy of judgement given the ubiquity and inherent merits of direct action as a political means.

Please. Explain.

My objection is that I think people like Kulak who engage in performative outrage about Rotherham do not actually care about the victims and are not advocating race war because white girls were victimized. They are not motivated by empathy at any level.

There certainly are some people who care, and there are probably some people who care only because they were white girls raped by Muslims (and yes, I am judgmental and critical of them too). But the strain of race warrior who wants Rotherham to be a causus belli against the coloreds otherwise have nothing but contempt for the sort of girls victimized in Rotherham, white or not.

More comments

It's perfectly possible to not-care-if-individual-Xs-comes-to-harm without hating Xs in general, or indeed, if you like Xs. Plenty of people like bunny rabbits, and might even sincerely love their pet rabbits, without turning into animal rights activists.

Would you say people who love pet rabbits in general but still love humans more don't truly love pet rabbits?

All you say is possible, I just don't believe it's an accurate or charitable description of almost anybody's concerns.

Suppose a man loves his pet rabbit, and finds pictures of rabbits abstractly cute, but happily eats rabbit meat without a twinge of guilt, and has never lifted a finger to campaign to ban the hunting or industrial farming of rabbits. Suppose that he has a personal enemy. Now suppose that he learns that this enemy sometimes goes rabbit-hunting; and suppose that, having found this out, he makes a stink, ranting to all who'll listen about how it's outrageous, how the guy must be brought to accounts, and now won't everyone see how much of a monster he is, like I've been saying all along: he's been blowing cute defenseless bunnies' brains out for fun, you can't deny it now.

In such a case I think it's fair to accuse this man of using the rabbit thing as a convenient weapon against someone he hated anyway; and to say his anger has very little to do with a sincere concern for rabbit welfare. Even if he really does love his pet rabbit.

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