site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   25820 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My right to be alive supersedes your right to have a gun.

My right to have a gun does not interfere with your right to be alive (which isn't a right, anyway; at best you may have a right for others not to kill you). The right to keep and bear arms may increase the danger to you, but if that's sufficient to strip it, you are not a strong advocate of the Second Amendment.

Involuntarily committed people have usually committed a crime

No, this is not the case -- especially not if you restrict "crime" to felonies. And "usually" isn't the correct standard for depriving someone of a right anyway.

It is not assessed through a jury of peers, but this is why I'm asking what you want instead, because if you want that shit gets worse - do you want to be held until the legal system gets its shit together instead of just discharged from the hospital? Do you want your taxes to balloon?

These are not in fact the options. Another option is to not deprive those who have been involuntary committed of their right to keep and bear arms once they are released.

These are not in fact the options. Another option is to not deprive those who have been involuntary committed of their right to keep and bear arms once they are released.

Guy threatens to kill you for raping him. He gets admitted to the hospital. He gets discharged and still wants to kill you after he stops his meds, so he goes to a gun store, buys a gun, and shoots you.

How do you prevent this?

How do you prevent this?

You don't discharge him, obviously.

So I continue to hold him in the hospital against his will even though he is no longer a threat to himself or others? (he is only a threat after he goes home and stops taking his medicine).

That seems more rights destroying than preventing gun access, no?

Furthermore - who pays for this? Indefinite hospital stay is expensive as hell. What about the other people who need that bed?

So I continue to hold him in the hospital against his will even though he is no longer a threat to himself or others? (he is only a threat after he goes home and stops taking his medicine).

If the only thing keeping you from killing someone is an unsupervised medication schedule you're not being forced to take, observed while talking, or guarded while taking, you are not in fact safe.

Normal people aren't one or two med cycles away from murder. This man is not safe at all, and does not deserve freedom.

Furthermore - who pays for this? Indefinite hospital stay is expensive as hell. What about the other people who need that bed?

Fair point, I'm down with just killing the rabid ones.

I mean this is the point, their exists a class of people in society who are not safe to themselves or others due to a mental illness (this is different from the class of people who are this way due to personality structure, life experience, genetics, racism, whatever - we call these criminals).

For many mental illnesses denial of the mental illness, denial of symptoms, denial of need for medications - all these things are frequent parts of the pathology (sniff test to make it make sense: if you are delusional of course you are going to think you don't have delusions).

People who acknowledge they have problems end up with a voluntary admission not an involuntary one "man you nearly killed yourself dude, you think being in the hospital for a few days would be good for you?"

In any case you come in, take meds, stabilize, get discharged. Then you go home and forget to take your beds, have medical stuff that happens that makes the meds don't work, decide not to take them "because it went away" whatever. Then you get sick again and dangerous.

Rights restriction (such involuntary outpatient commitment, forced medications, jail time, indefinite hospital stays) is usually the way - harm reduction approaches such as banning firearm access are both cheaper and much less disruptive to the patient.

This is why I want Nybbler to come up with an alternative plan because realistically the problem is often "jail and no guns" or "no jail and no guns" (even if it is just fancy jail with extra steps).

This is not an argument against guns, it's an argument against freedom for crazy people. The right move is to kill or permanently house them away from the general population, because they're actively detrimental to polite society.

It's an argument about giving crazy people guns.

We make an effort to restrict people's rights to the minimum we can, even if it results in bad outcomes sometimes. Locking away someone indefinitely (or like, killing them) is extremely restrictive.

Giving them some rope with which to metaphorically hang themselves but not too much preserves autonomy as much as we can.

We also give the crazy people guns, cars, and their bare hands.

If someone is unsafe, the correct move is to imprison them. Full stop, end of the line. The goal is not to maximize the autonomy of dangerous people, and that you think it is confuses me. If you're, again, one med cycle away from cold blooded fucking murder of an innocent person, you are not safe, you are a sedated predator. We should no more let you walk around than we would a grizzly bear.

More comments

I see Nybbler beat me to it, but this is a useless thought experiment because it can just as easily be rerun for kitchen knives and screwdrivers.

Guns are significantly more lethal than kitchen knives and screwdrivers. In the case of suicides for instance, it is very common for people to attempt suicide and then regret it. Means that are more lethal (especially more impulsively) are more likely to lead to completions.

I gotta imagine that most doctors have seen at least one patient who shot themselves in the head or attempted to do so and somehow survived. It is roouughhh.

The person who took a handful of melatonin in a suicide attempt is much better off afterwards.

Guy threatens to kill you for raping him. He gets admitted to the hospital. He gets discharged and still wants to kill you after he stops his meds, so he strangles you with his bare hands. How do you prevent this?. Well, obviously, you just keep him locked up, indefinitely. You might think this is a major infringement on his right to liberty, and you'd be right. Just as taking away his gun rights is.

Guy is feeling kinda depressed. He goes to a pshrink and mentions that he's feeling suicidal thoughts. Pshrink commits him. He gets out 3 days later. Now he's lost his gun rights, but that doesn't bother you. You're not a strong advocate of the Second Amendment.

He goes to a pshrink and mentions that he's feeling suicidal thoughts

This does not meet commitment criteria. He should be committed if he attempted to kill himself, or if he is likely to kill himself if sent home. Suicidal ideation is not enough. Suicidal ideation with plan and intent or suicide attempt is.

Well, obviously, you just keep him locked up, indefinitely

So you would rather lock people up indefinitely than allow them to go free and not have guns?

This does not meet commitment criteria. He should be committed if he attempted to kill himself, or if he is likely to kill himself if sent home.

The latter is entirely within the discretion of the pshrink.

So you would rather lock people up indefinitely than allow them to go free and not have guns?

I want them to go free and have guns. Both liberty (i.e. not being in jail) and the right to bear arms are rights and should not be permanently taken away based on the word of a psychiatrist, or a police officer, or even a police officer AND a psychiatrist.

What is your proposal.

That the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

That is not a plan.

That's the proposal. The answer to "I know this guy is going to do something bad but I can't prove it in court, so I want to take away his rights anyway" is "no". That's true whether it's liberty, speech, or guns.

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