site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   33107 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 26, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm like you in that I don't consider transgenderness valid at all, but I cannot really take that stance in the areas that I argue in. If they're going to wield studies and science to justify these horrible actions, someone else has to do the same to fight back against their worst excesses. I think I've made my peace with adults deciding to take hormones and wear the wrong clothing and try embarrassingly to talk like the opposite sex, though I resent having to pretend they are what they are pretending to be. But something like puberty blockers must be viciously fought in every place it pops up.

I don't consider transgenderness valid at all

What do you mean by "valid," and how did you come to the conclusion that transgenderism is not valid?

The idea that you can swap genders is a farce that is only enabled by anarchists who spent too much time thinking about sex, and invented a convenient concept that gender is opposite from sex. For pretty much anyone, undertaking the sex change journey is an incredibly bad idea. It marks you as a freak and you will spend your whole life trying and failing to fit in. Fighting one's nature is not fun. It also mostly puts you out of normal life paths like marriage and raising kids.

I think I've made my peace with adults deciding to take hormones and wear the wrong clothing and try embarrassingly to talk like the opposite sex

'Free, white, and twenty-one' as the saying used to be (though now that's racist for including 'white'). If you're a legal adult and not harming anyone else, okay, fuck your own life up. When it comes to minor children, we need to be a hell of a lot more careful.

Again, it’s not a scientific belief. Really it’s not a belief about science on either side, it’s a belief about ontology.

The correct rhetorical move is to point this out while holding on to the Cass report. What is a Woman did a pretty good job of showing the lack of sciencey-ness to trans beliefs amongst the proles; that’s the tack to take moreso than getting into the muck about the side effects of puberty blockers unless you, yourself, happen to be a doctor.

Thankfully, I am not a doctor. I appreciate the rhetorical suggestion. I don't know how much I can take it, though, because these are my friends and I try not to overly offend my friends (or anyone, I guess). Like Sonya from Crime and Punishment, I have recently realized that no matter how I conduct myself, I will never be able to totally avoid offending people.

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