site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   31632 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.

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.

I understand this is your claim but I've yet to see you produce some actual reasoning as to why this is true besides that you don't like those people. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

By observing what they say about, and how they treat, their supposed "ingroup" in every other situation.

Can you be more specific?

... How specific do you want me to be? I am genuinely not sure what you're grasping at here, other than that we disagree over what internally motivates this particular class of people. Neither of us are mindreaders, and I doubt asking Kulak would produce an answer both of us believe. Perhaps Kulak is not the best example to use, since he's quite extreme and performative anyway and it's hard to guess what he honestly believes (if anything) other than "violence is good." However, I already stated my reasoning above: the sort of people suddenly motivated by outrage at the Rotherham rape gangs were not outraged many years ago (when I first heard about them, and I'm not even British!) and the reaction I saw from people who want to burn the place down and lynch all the kebabis now was "Where are these sluts' fathers?"

You seem to either object to my being uncharitable to people who want a race war, or you are striving to match me to that ingroup/outgroup empathy map that supposedly shows liberals care more about immigrants than they do about their own families. If I am misunderstanding you, I'm afraid you will need to clarify.

I'm just trying to get something more out of you than "I believe this is the case" because I care about understanding how and why people think what they do.

I don't really give a shit about that mislabeled graphic from that study everyone misquotes. Except insofar as the success of the meme reveals something about how people view each other.

I feel the same way I do when people say commies don't care about the poor and just hate the rich. There's some version of that statement that's true for some of the people. But it's not that simple and "they don't care" is the kind of thought terminating cliché that leads people to be befuddled when the people who don't care start doing radical things in directions they telegraphed.

I find this type of mind reading frustrating. People are a lot more honest and open about their intentions than they get credit for. People just don't like to look at or think about it.

I'm just trying to get something more out of you than "I believe this is the case" because I care about understanding how and why people think what they do.

I gave you my reasoning, which is based on my observation of behavior and statements over a period of time. When people post outrage about white womanhood being violated by alien brown hordes, but their every other post is about how white women are thots who are destroying Western civilization (and it'll be totally awesome when they get what's coming to them - which often enough includes "being raped by brown hordes"), I become skeptical that they are sincerely outraged on behalf of white womanhood. Or maybe they really do believe that white women being raped and abused is only bad if it's brown people doing it, which is no better IMO, and I also do not think is an example of "concentric circles of affinity." If I'm okay with you being raped and murdered by a neighbor because you're just a fellow citizen and not my family, but I'll cry crocodile tears about you being raped and murdered by a foreigner, maybe that means I really hate foreigners, but it certainly doesn't mean I feel any kinship for you.

And you know, you say you find mindreading and a belief that people don't mean what they say frustrating, and yet you started out by accusing me of believing:

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

which I have trouble reading as a good faith interpretation of my initial post.

If you choose to extend more benefit of the doubt to the Kulaks of the world than I do, so be it.

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.

This may or may not be true of Kulak, but I think there's more demand for this sort of person then there is supply. In fact I've seen more frustration with the right's lack of contempt for these girls, than I did actual contempt.

sounds like this meme, only swap a couple of words out.

Pretty accurate, yes.

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