site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31676 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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 couldn’t agree more with @zeke5123a below, 50 experiments is always better than 1. Some state governments will be more competent than others. Some will be more ‘woke’ or ‘anti woke’ than others; they may be correlated or inversely correlated, who knows? But at least they will exist.

For the same reason, I hope some lib state enacts an NHS style healthcare system in the near future (presumably with some caveats to prevent out-of-staters from using it). Not because I want to see it fail, but because I don’t see why it shouldn’t be tried at a state level.

More controversially, I feel the same is true about mandatory ID cards and hate speech laws, by the way. If Vermont wants Euro-style hate speech laws, I really don’t care. Plenty of states will oppose them. The same is true for gun control, for civil rights, for gay marriage, for religion in government.

Let the feds handle foreign policy, defense, intelligence, some interstate policing and - at arms length via the fed - monetary policy. Nothing more.

I never understood the liberal and leftist antagonism to this. It's an obvious compromise, fits right in with their ideas of multiculturalism, Diversity Is Our Strength, etc., and if you're so sure your ideas are better than others', this arrangement will make it plainly obvious soon enough.

I can only interpret as a deep insecurity that letting the experiment run will actually disprove, rather than prove their ideas.

I don’t think kids in Alabama deserve bad education that puts them behind their peers because their parents aren’t very smart

  • -10

And I don't think kids in California deserve to be chemically castrated because they gravitated to the wrong kind of toy. Would you rather have my views applied locally or globally?

Do you have any evidence that kids in California are being chemically castrated?

  • -10

Anyone who's on puberty blockers is being chemically castrated. It's the same drug that's used for both.

Okay, well, that’s not true, but you do you.

  • -16

Do you have any evidence that it's not true? Like I said, they use the exact same drug, with the exact same purpose (sex-hormone suppression).

Also, answer my question: do you want my views applied globally or locally?

I, too, would like a source for that.

A casual search suggests that the standard for chemical castration is “MPA”, or maybe “DMPA.” At least that’s what California law specified. If I understand it right, that’s a progestin (progestogen??) similar to what’s in the combination birth control pill.

Wikipedia claims the preferred blockers are “GnRH agonists” and maybe antagonists. It mentions progestogens to say they might be cheaper, and the main source is about precocious puberty, not gender identity.

In case Wikipedia is shamelessly misrepresenting the issue, I looked at a couple other sites. Neither suggests (D)MPA or any progestogen.

More comments

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