site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   33217 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 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.

My point is that saying something like "our society should push not having premarital sex" is stupid because it doesn't work.

I'm not sure how I would analyze that. Someone in the past might have said that it was similarly stupid to push not smoking. Yet, we did, and major changes occurred. There are all sorts of mechanisms by which a society could push such a thing. Those various mechanisms might have different effects. It's pretty strange to me to lump them all together carelessly. It seems to be actively missing the point to lump them all under "we should simply tell them to not have sex", as if they're all actually equivalent to that. I think it would have been similarly stupid to say that all methods of pushing to reduce smoking are equivalent to "simply telling people to not smoke".

My main point is that it's doubly difficult to analyze how effective various methods could be, given a society that has been pushing for ubiquitous premarital sex for decades. It's just seriously difficult to reason about, and flippant takes like yours are not even really serious attempts at doing so.

EDIT: I will note that my original response was with respect to your statement:

How is convincing western populations not to do this going?

Again, this makes it sound like this is a thing that is actively being pursued. That's sort of the opposite of reality.

Again, this makes it sound like this is a thing that is actively being pursued. That's sort of the opposite of reality.

It has been actively pursued for decades by a small subset of people (Evangelical Christians) who genuinely believe in it. They were ignored because they were a minority who were unsuccessful in convincing others. Which is rather the point here.

Which is rather the point here.

Sorry, I don't get what is rather the point here. Can you spell it out?

Well, the argument seems to be that we should try pushing abstinence (though social pressure and/or government policy) programs. The first hurdle is convincing enough of the public to join you in lobbying for it. Evangelical Christians have tried promoting abstinence since more or less forever, but over time they've largely lost relevance socially and politically. Their failure to gain support is some amount of evidence that that abstinence is truly the unfavored social position.

Abstinence has historically been promoted through shame. And as progressives seem to be currently finding out, the minority can't effectively shame the majority.

Right, so the opposite is currently being pursued by the majority, as I was saying.

The argument, as I understand it, was originally some form of:

  1. Abstinence is currently being heavily pushed by society. (This assumption was hidden and turns out to be wrong.)
  2. This heavy push is failing for reasons. ("How's that going?")
  3. Therefore, the idea is conceptually flawed, for reasons.

You and I seem to agree that the first premise is false. I'm not really sure what other point you have. Perhaps it's this bit:

The first hurdle is convincing enough of the public to join you in lobbying for it.

Sure. Obviously, that's a challenge. But it's sort of irrelevant to the original discussion? Unless you view this as a fully-general argument against any sort of minority view? Like, sure, any minority view on any topic has a hurdle of convincing enough of the public to join you in lobbying for it. That's not particularly novel or useful to discuss. Communists and libertarians and trans activists and neoluddites and... and... are all aware that they have minority views that they would like to promote more widely.

Evangelical Christians have tried promoting abstinence since more or less forever, but over time they've largely lost relevance socially and politically. Their failure to gain support is some amount of evidence that that abstinence is truly the unfavored social position.

Various minority views have had upswings and downswings. The slavery abolitionists, the anti-alcohol folks, the pro-alcohol folks, the anti-smoking folks, the eugenics folks, the pro/anti-police/surveillance folks, the free marketers and the regulators, etc. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's an issue that will shift, won't shift, will stay perpetually divisive (e.g. abortion), or whatever. Duly noted and agreed that the predominant swing for several decades has been pro-premarital sex (and a variety of related issues). That was actually my point.

Unless you view this as a fully-general argument against any sort of minority view?

If the minority view has been presented for a long time and gotten no traction, and the one proposing it again doesn't seem to have any actionable ideas to make it more palatable this time, then I absolutely would. Particularly when we're talking about trying to get the public to wait to have sex. Prostitution is called "the oldest profession" for a reason. Even when shaming pre-marital sex was ascendant - the vast majority of history - it was very frequently not followed. Now that contraception and abortion methods have advanced I don't see how you plan to get the genie back into the bottle. Pre-marital sex has a very easy product to sell and you have a very difficult product to sell. Yes, views rise and fall with the era but not all are equal. If someone wanted to bring slavery back they are going to have a very uphill battle.

and the one proposing it again doesn't seem to have any actionable ideas to make it more palatable this time

This is where I'm just going to bow out and say, "Not playing this silly game." As I wrote:

This sort of demand is basically trying to set up an impossible task, as no one here is going to be able to just apply magic to accomplish intermediate steps, and any proposed intermediate steps will be responded to with, "...then why haven't you already done that?"

But yeah, "genies" have "gone back into bottles" before (what a shitty, loaded metaphor). I made a long list in my last comment and everything.

Yes, views rise and fall with the era but not all are equal. If someone wanted to bring slavery back they are going to have a very uphill battle.

True enough. It just so happens to be that we don't see a world where the lack of slavery is causing all sorts of real world problems for individuals and societies. Plus all the good moral arguments and everything. Funny that, both those factors cut the other way for the instant question. As I wrote:

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's an issue that will shift, won't shift, will stay perpetually divisive (e.g. abortion), or whatever.

This sort of demand is basically trying to set up an impossible task, as no one here is going to be able to just apply magic to accomplish intermediate steps, and any proposed intermediate steps will be responded to with, "...then why haven't you already done that?"

No one is asking you to divine the future or mind control the public. To give an example, the Democratic party knows they are deeply unpopular right now. They are putting a bunch of money into trying to figure out what they can do to win the public back. No one has any future knowledge whether they will take any lessons to heart or that it will work, but if the discussion were about whether the Democrats can make a comeback, it's a discussion point to argue how they might. They aren't just sitting around and hoping the public randomly becomes receptive to the same message.

Is there any group out there doing that for abstinence/marriage?

But yeah, "genies" have "gone back into bottles" before (what a shitty, loaded metaphor). I made a long list in my last comment and everything.

You cherry picked historical examples of cultural shifts to prove the possibility. The theoretical possibility was never in doubt, the question was over whether the odds are high enough to be worth discussing. It's theoretically possible that in the future society decriminalizes murder, but I'm not about to make a writeup exploring the possibility.

True enough. It just so happens to be that we don't see a world where the lack of slavery is causing all sorts of real world problems for individuals and societies. Plus all the good moral arguments and everything.

That is an example of how the abolitionists succeeded in forming such a winning message that you don't see a counterargument. People did argue that slavery was a societal good (if only because no one wants to be the villain). They argued that back in Africa black tribesman were either lazy or fighting each other, and over here they are productive and safe (so long as they don't provoke the master of course). If you could bring a southern man from the past here he'd probably look at urban black culture and tell you they were better off slaves.

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's an issue that will shift, won't shift, will stay perpetually divisive (e.g. abortion), or whatever.

"Sometimes it's hard to tell" is a way to frame the discussion to throw out the need to discuss. It's similar to consensus-gathering but for an argument. I can articulate the reasons why no-fault divorce became popular:

  • It appeals to the modern liberal belief system of associating or not associating with whomever you want.

  • People are hard-wired to like sex and believe that contraceptives and abortion allow them to have that consequence-free.

  • When parents stick together despite hating each other it creates a toxic environment that leads to mental health problems for children.

  • It leads to needing to prove abuse in order to escape abusive environments.

  • Arguments for marriage are often rooted in Christianity which is on the decline.

If you want people to marry and abstain from sex the biggest hurdle is going to be primarily those top two arguments. From where I'm standing it looks like those arguments resonate greatly.

You cherry picked historical examples of cultural shifts to prove the possibility.

No. I just went through a wide variety of things, some which shifted, some which then didn't shift. We could keep generating a very very very long list, but I figured it was better to not have a 5k word comment that is just a silly list.

"Sometimes it's hard to tell" is a way to frame the discussion to throw out the need to discuss. It's similar to consensus-gathering but for an argument.

Frankly, this is bullshit. As evidenced by your statements:

People did argue that slavery was a societal good (if only because no one wants to be the villain). They argued that back in Africa black tribesman were either lazy or fighting each other, and over here they are productive and safe (so long as they don't provoke the master of course). If you could bring a southern man from the past here he'd probably look at urban black culture and tell you they were better off slaves.

If I had told a pro-slavery person, back when being pro-slavery was ascendant, that mayyyyyyybe they should be sliiiiiiightly open to the idea that it's poooossible that slavery won't stay ascendant forever, would you be there saying:

"Sometimes it's hard to tell" is a way to frame the discussion to throw out the need to discuss. It's similar to consensus-gathering but for an argument.

Would you be there saying:

You cherry picked historical examples of cultural shifts to prove the possibility. The theoretical possibility was never in doubt, the question was over whether the odds are high enough to be worth discussing. It's theoretically possible that in the future society decriminalizes murder, but I'm not about to make a writeup exploring the possibility.

?

no-fault divorce

???

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