site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   25772 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.

People who dislike me because of X attribute (for instance jihadis) can have a gun. People who have said threatening things towards people like me can have a gun. People who have gone out and attacked people like me can't have a gun. People who have murdered people like me definitely can't have a gun.

That's what felons have done, committed a crime and so you lost the right. Involuntarily committed people have usually committed a crime (that does not go charged because we don't usually charge people for suicide attempts or attacking an ER nurse while psychotic), or have expressed a desire, willingness, and ability to commit a crime.

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?

Accept the current system, propose something else, or let your psychotic neighbor shoot you in the face.

You've also declined to say whether limitations should exist, which is clearly important.

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?

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.

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