site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   31856 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 23, 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've been saying it for a while: it's gotten to a point where saying "having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded.

  • -15

I've been saying it for a while: it's gotten to a point where saying "having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded.

Only to the extent that its a subset of "having kids is bad" which is a strong left coded meme. I think if you are to have a child the left generally would prefer it being out of wedlock.

I think this is a little far- the median white democrat is some normie teacher who thinks children should be planned and in a stable relationship that they might not be super explicit about needing to be marriage but they would be skeptical about non-marriage relationships filling the same role.

"having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded

... when it presupposes one is having lots of sex with lots of men outside of marriage.

I'm going to make the wild suggestion that both sex and children should be within a marriage.

This is nonsense. The expectation is that these women will get married to the men they start families with.

Do you have a poll showing this?

My understanding is that the traditional way is that it's fairly common to just accept that if you get pregnant from pre-maritial sex, you get married and everyone agrees to not do the math on the wedding date compared to your first child's birthday. While there's certainly been a change in the past few decades of whether it's acceptable to not get married in that situation, I'm not sure there's any real reason to believe the prevalence of unmarried people having sex has gone up.

'Past few decades' is more recent than the change really was- when the 'long fifties' as I call them ended(varies a bit by location and background but 1970 at the latest in the US), so did the 'you got her pregnant you have to marry her' mentality.

Eh, I know a number of couples who ended up married because of a surprise pregnancy in the 80s and 90s, some of whom would admit that they probably wouldn’t have stayed together otherwise. Heck, it’s still not completely uncommon where I grew up. Getting pregnant and then not getting married is seen as pretty low-class. Some do it anyway, but they were usually trailer trash to begin with.

This is a meme that goes all the way back to the 17th century.

I think it was Cervantes who quipped about how "In her eagerness, a new wife may accomplish in 6 months what would ordinarily take a woman 9" 😉

it's gotten to a point where saying "having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded.

You didn't say that. The woman in your example is looking to get married and have kids after having the conventional life of sex outside marriage, drinking, feminist empowerment by sleeping around, etc.

Listening to Ms. Clark, Ms. Zito said, changed her life. She started a Bible study group, cut down her drinking and stopped dating casually as she focused on finding a husband. She stopped using birth control, taking up a natural family planning method recommended on Ms. Clark's show, and became dubious about abortions and vaccines. She no longer identifies as a feminist.

The article is paywalled so I can't read the entirety, but if you can quote me the part where Ms. Zito is single and pregnant, go right ahead and I'll be properly horrified. If not, it just sounds like your usual hobbyhorse of "every woman should be on artificial contraception because having babies is yucky low class behaviour".

The article is paywalled so I can't read the entirety, but if you can quote me the part where Ms. Zito is single and pregnant, go right ahead and I'll be properly horrified.

She isn't. Here are all the paragraphs mentioning Ms. Zito, from the non-paywalled archive:

Rhaelynn Zito is one such conservative convert. Ms. Zito is a 25-year-old nurse who lives in Raleigh, N.C. In 2023, she said she had a real belly flop of a year. She went through a breakup, lost a family member and was searching for purpose outside work. Ms. Zito began listening to Ms. Clark, whose Turning Point USA show is often ranked among the top ten of health podcasts on Spotify.

Listening to Ms. Clark, Ms. Zito said, changed her life. She started a Bible study group, cut down her drinking and stopped dating casually as she focused on finding a husband. She stopped using birth control, taking up a natural family planning method recommended on Ms. Clark’s show, and became dubious about abortions and vaccines. She no longer identifies as a feminist.

“What dipped my toe into all of this was the MAHA movement,” Ms. Zito said, referring to the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, championed by influencers like Ms. Clark and now led in the Trump administration by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “I find myself leaning more conservative than I ever have before.”

...

Right before she flew to Dallas, Ms. Zito realized it was time to tell her close friends and family that she identified as conservative. After all, they might see her post photos from the Turning Point conference on Instagram.

Ms. Zito braced herself and called her grandmother, a liberal Methodist pastor in New Jersey. “I’m moderately conservative!” (She said her grandmother didn’t make a fuss, mostly wanting her to be happy.)

Ms. Zito still encounters political issues that prompt her to lean left. She finds some of the White House’s messaging about ICE raids to be “unchristian.” She believes in access to abortion under some circumstances. She wants a career. But she finds the MAHA of it all compelling. “It’s just like Alex Clark always says,” she explained. “We will not have political fights in 100 years if we’re all sick and don’t have babies.”

Sounds like she turned her life around; good for her. She is still young enough to catch a husband and have children.

No it’s… not?

There’s pretty strong agreement on that from all sides of the political spectrum.

If she's trying to find a husband, presumably the baby would be with her husband. That's not out of wedlock; that's in wedlock.

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