site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   28924 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 2, 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.

Of course we do. The entire debate is meaningless semantics. Obviously there is such a thing as biological sex, obviously there are some differences in behavior of the two biological sexes on average. Obviously there is such a thing as a male brain and female brain. None of that is inconsistent with allowing people to transition. Transgenderism is a transhumanist technological development, not an ideology. The only people who are confused about what a woman is are feminists and christians who think there is some deep meaning to gender roles and gender identity.

Transhumanism is the chief ideology of TESCREAL fascists and extremely right-wing and problematic.

No wonder Moldbug always claims to be the most right wing person in the room.

Eh? Is he a transhumanist? I mostly only noticed all the blogging.

No (or rather it's unclear and complicated depending on how you read him), but if mild progressive nerds the likes of this are already fascism, I dare not think how hyperfascist NRX sounds.

Land must be mecha-Hitler.

if mild progressive nerds the likes of this are already fascism

Oh, no idea. I was just quoting the doctrine.

I notice that for all your discussion of how obvious it is, you did not, yourself, say what a woman is.

Of course we do. The entire debate is meaningless semantics. Obviously there is such a thing as biological sex, obviously there are some differences in behavior of the two biological sexes on average. Obviously there is such a thing as a male brain and female brain.

Many trans activists and progressives now explicitly reject all of those premises.

None of that is inconsistent with allowing people to transition.

There are really only a handful of anti-trans people who literally believe people shouldn't be "allowed" to transition. You are an adult who wants to have surgery and hormones and live your life as the opposite sex? Okay. Probably most conservatives would even be willing to go along and use your preferred pronouns out of politeness. They might think you're mentally ill and should reconsider your life choices, but only assholes go out of their way to "misgender" someone just to make sure you know what they think of you.

It's when the "debate" went far beyond semantics and social kindness that trans people became seen as more than just troubled individuals who deserve sympathy. It's not meaningless semantics when we're talking about puberty blockers for children, or men competing in sports and being housed in women's prisons and taking over women's spaces, or people being shunned or professionally harmed for saying there are four lights.

There are really only a handful of anti-trans people who literally believe people shouldn't be "allowed" to transition.

I think this just cheap consensus building, a semantic trap which rests a lot on what the word "allow" means. Not many people would for instance literally believe, that it should not be allowed for people to drink themselves to death or that they are not allowed to cut of their fingers or any number of other gruesome things. But these arguments would be more in line with thinking that alcoholism or self-harm is bad, and that the society should do everything to prevent it using shaming and other tools. Because any other measure to prevent it would be worse and not really applicable.

But many more conservatives and also liberals would against let's say having "gender expression" as a protected characteristic in law or having transition being financed by taxpayers.

'Only a handful' is not accurate. The median social conservative believes people with a position of social trust(eg teachers, cops, clergy) shouldn't be allowed to transition, that the fringes who transition should be required to use same-sex restrooms and not ones matching their gender identity(and that if it is a safety issue for FTM's to use the men's then they shouldn't have transitioned), and that using preferred pronouns is a lie. They would refuse to allow their son to wear dresses or use a female name(tolerance for gender bending the other way is typically higher just because gender roles are loosey-goosier).

More to the point, 'homosexuality among consenting adults should be explicitly illegal and a serious crime' still has just-below-20% support in the American public, and most of them believe it should be punishable by death. We can presume that the 15% or so of people who think homosexuals should be hanged also believe gender transition should be illegal. That is a minority, but not a handful.

…Where are you getting your numbers from? I simply cannot believe that support for criminalization of homosexuality approaches 1 in 5, let alone support for construction crane conversion therapy. By my observation, the anti-LGBT crowd generally don’t desire to go on the offensive, they just want to be left alone.

By my observation, the anti-LGBT crowd generally don’t desire to go on the offensive, they just want to be left alone.

Then you probably don't live in the right areas of the country. People still disown their gay kids. There are a lot of very socially conservative spaces in America, they are just not visible online mostly.

Being left alone is clearly not an option. I would speculate the number of people who want to criminalize homosexuality is increasing as a result of being exposed to it more often. I certainly have moved away from a libertarian position for those reasons.

Indeed. As AntiDem put it:

Is the existence of homosexual pride parades reason enough to re-outlaw same-sex sexual intercourse?

You ban it to preserve your society - your faith and traditions - against fatal poisoning by degeneracy.

Fifty years ago, the gay rights movement said that all they wanted was to be left alone to do as they pleased behind the privacy of closed doors. That was a lie. What they really wanted was to upend society in order to serve their own aims, to spread Cultural Marxism, and to bring low our faith and traditions. We know this, because that is what they have actually done. If it is a case of "they are always either at your feet or at your throat", then they shall be at our feet. And so it is: they have proven themselves to be the kind of monster you don't let out of the basement, so next time we won't.

We gave them an inch, they took a mile; next time they get nothing.

Whether or not those conservatives should be required to pay taxes towards your seen-as-elective medical treatments is probably also a sticking point. That one comes up with abortion too, and has with birth control in the past --- I'm not sure if anyone beyond Hobby Lobby really cares quite as strongly there these days.

I know several people who belong to 'christian health sharing ministries' in lieu of insurance because they can't stomach paying for birth control with their premiums.

It's when the "debate" went far beyond semantics and social kindness that trans people became seen as more than just troubled individuals who deserve sympathy.

One additional factor: it's when transness began to be seen as contagious. I don't know if that makes the eventually-anti-trans position look better or worse but there it is.

The problem with this position taking is that the popular messaging and what most activists actually say is against you. So they're either cynically lying or you very transparently are on the outside.

I think it's fair to say that any movement will have people who sincerely believe in the motte and do not believe in the bailey.

What does believing the motte cash out to? If it's mere preference, a transhumanist freedom of form where we let people edit their own bodies as much as they want surely this doesn't imply much in terms of trans women in women's sports, endorsing childhood intervention or nearly any other culture war hot point. Consenting adults can do whatever they want is the old truce if people want to return to it then they shouldn't be on the trans rights advocates side of most disputes.

trans women in women's sports, endorsing childhood intervention or nearly any other culture war hot point

Yep that's the bailey. I'm not trying to speak for the other poster, and it's not my position, but it seems reasonable to me that people who believe the motte but not the bailey can still pick their side based on whether they think it's more important to avoid being caught out in the bailey, or whether defending the motte from people who are 100% anti-trans is still worth it.

What does believing the motte cash out to?

Believing a motte shouldn't "cash out to" partisan/tribal goals.

My point is that believing in the motte version excludes them from the group under discussion. They believe something entirely different. It'd be like a libertarian responding with of course we care about the deficit when discussing whether the people supporting the big beautiful bill care about the deficit. Great that you care but the actual party passing the actual bill isn't listening to you and thinks your concerns are stupid and wrong.

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