site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   32510 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 7, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I feel like this discussion is the missing ingredient to lots of the topics du jour. Let's take the leftward drift of young women- well social conservatism today seems to have, uh, not discussed what other people owe to them, only what they owe to other people.

Eh, I see this discussion a lot. One common line is that what other people (specifically, men, specifically, husbands) owed them -- mostly financial support and physical protection -- is something that they can now either provide for themselves or will be provided by the state, so they no longer need to offer anything.

But in general social conservatism is hierarchical, not reciprocal. Duties are owed to those higher up; parents, church, community. Even those things owed to another person of similar rank or lower down are not owed to them per se, but owed to them because it is ones duty to society to provide it. This is one of the reasons social conservatism is so stifling, especially to the young (who are low in the hierarchy).

Hmm, an obvious failure mode to social conservatism sounds like it would be a state weighed down by elder care, which is not too far off from describing most of the world's advanced economies, and the problem is very much getting worse.

Elsewhere, someone else talked about a marriage needing to be in service of something greater than the marriage. To many social conservatives, it seems like the answer to this is a deity. To me, it seems like you should just be able to make the marriage in service of the children. On an overall societal level, I would criticize both liberals and conservatives as failing to prioritize the future, progeny, etc, and wish there was a way to get this to happen.

The fact this doesn’t strongly happen is more to with how social conservatism in the US picked up an emphasis on the nuclear family, which sort of intrinsically shuts out grandparents in a way other conservatives don’t.

Elsewhere, someone else talked about a marriage needing to be in service of something greater than the marriage. To many social conservatives, it seems like the answer to this is a deity. To me, it seems like you should just be able to make the marriage in service of the children.

Children are not "greater than the marriage", so they do not provide an answer to that, if one is needed.

If you want progeny, though, you have to have the conditions for it. Social conservative communities provided those conditions, but I don't think they can do so any more. Modernity, however, seems to be failing more and more. I have no answers, but I'm fairly sure "more of the same" won't work.

I see lots of complaining about child support payments and the like, even by those generally skeptical of girlboss women's lib.

That’s because of it’s perverse incentives towards divorce and pre martial sex

Child support payments are part of modernity, not social conservatism. Anyway, if people are discussing them they are discussing obligations owed to (in practice) women; the usual complaint here seems to be the obligation is one sided. (Which it is; the child support payments are owed even if the money is not used for the child or if visitation and/or joint custody rights are denied)

Child support payments are part of modernity, not social conservatism

Those two are not antonyms. Contemporary American Social conservatism perceives itself as being "timeless" "common sense morality," but it's very modern. Imagine trying to convince your 1800s great great grandmother that a fertilized egg that's barely visible to the naked eye is a "baby" or "person." It's something social conservatives believe they've logicked themselves into, much like leftists believe they've logicked themselves into "trans women are women!" I'm skeptical either "really" believes it, deep down.

  • -14

I remain impressed by how you manage to drag abortion in to any discussion whatsoever. Nobody was talking about 19th century attitudes to the personhood of the foetus, but there you went!

While I agree that Turok is a one trick pony, attitudes towards abortion are germane to the topic. I did grow up with the attitude that a woman seeking an abortion was not just a murderer but also a shirker(just like a boyfriend who didn't marry her when he found her with child). I don't think fetal personhood is, though.

I talk about other subjects too like white nationalism and conservatism coding as low class.

I think maybe a good smell test would be: am I discussing the culture war, or waging it? No one is ever not guilty of breaking this from time to time but the ratio of “waging” posts to “discussing” posts is outta whack

You are not exactly talking about the class valence of the attitudes in my post(c'mon, 'shotgun weddings are trashy' is the lowest hanging fruit ever) or interrogating the implied racial attitudes.

c'mon, 'shotgun weddings are trashy' is the lowest hanging fruit ever

Fantasizing about them is, it's not something that happens anymore.

Social conservatives in America decided to make that the centerpiece of their political project and then get mad when I bring it up in response to a thread about social conservatism in America.

The majority decision in Dobbs pretty well lays out the development of abortion law in the U.S., and it got stricter across the nineteenth century as the quickening standard was left behind. I don’t think it would have been as hard to make that case as you say.

Imagine trying to convince my 1800s great great grandmother that my great grandmother, who just kicked her from the inside, was not a baby.

Not to re-litigate a worn out topic, but "kicked from the inside" -- aka quickening was historically (as in Colonial America) the point after which abortion was a crime.

Your great great grandmother probably had the same intuition embedded in Common Law.

Imagine trying to convince my 1800s great great grandmother that my great grandmother, who just kicked her from the inside, was not a baby.

Would be difficult. Fortunately nobody not made of straw would need to. All pro-choicers say is that if she wants an abortion she can get one.

  • -13

A lot of pro choicers also call it a “clump of cells,” not a baby.

If you want to bite the bullet and say that abortion is ending the life of a baby, go ahead, otherwise this is false on the face of it.

A lot of pro choicers also call it a “clump of cells,” not a baby.

A "clump of cells" can't kick its mother.

otherwise this false on the face of it.

Then give me an example of a pro-choicer telling a woman the late-term baby she wants to give birth to is a clump of cells, not a baby. Shouldn't be difficult if this is something they really say.

Perhaps I misunderstood - what I read from your initial comment was that “nobody not made of straw” would deny that it was a baby. But that they supported abortion anyways. If I am misunderstanding, my apologies.

Duties are owed to those higher up; parents, church, community. Even those things owed to another person of similar rank or lower down are not owed to them per se, but owed to them because it is ones duty to society to provide it.

The flip side is that the higher in the hierarchy you go, the higher the demands. A king has far, far more virtues to live up to and a far heavier burden to carry than a peasant. Being a priest puts far higher demands and far higher responsibilities on a person than being a layman.

A king has far, far more virtues to live up to and a far heavier burden to carry than a peasant.

And yet people regularly murder each other to become king and rarely murder each other to become a peasant.

Yeah, that's the burden part.

Most monarchs still don't/haven't chosen the peasant life instead, suggesting being a monarch is preferable.

In the same way that when I buy a Costco box of cookies I've burdened myself with eating them.

I'm being serious, what part of having to be constantly looking over your shoulder and being unable to trust even your closest relatives sound appealing to you.

Power is a curse, all those who actually tasted it will tell you. It eats at all of your life until nothing is left, and for what? In the end you only can make the decisions that allow you to maintain your station.

History is full of men who wanted nothing to do with it. And rightfully so.

Its only redeeming quality is that in the hands of your enemies, it is even more terrible than in yours.

But what has humanity ever hoped for if not for someone else to deal with anarchy? Entire societies built just so we don't have to do this dirty work ourselves. Whole religions spent on dreaming someone is doing it for us when we are too weak.

History is full of men who wanted nothing to do with it. And rightfully so.

Wars of succession are rarely fought to get the other guy to take on the, ah, "curse." There never seems to be a shortage of men ready and willing to take the top job.

It's only redeeming quality is that in the hands of your enemies, it is even more terrible than in yours.

These people have "enemies" because they wish to gain power and subjugate their rivals. If they didn't want to do those things, nobody would give a shit about them.

The vision of the reluctant ruler is a very romantic fantasy for the armchair philosopher, or for those with zero power in their personal life, but has very little, if anything, to do with reality.

If they didn't want to do those things, nobody would give a shit about them.

This just isn't true. History is full of people who refused to take power despite a solid claim and were killed by those who did. As I said, the only thing worse that holding power is your enemy holding it. Being benign works sometimes, but not all the time.

The vision of the reluctant ruler is a very romantic fantasy for the armchair philosopher, or for those with zero power in their personal life, but has very little, if anything, to do with reality.

See, that's not my experience at all, and I've actually had the burden or luxury of doing some leadership in both political and economic spheres in my own modest degree. While most people love to complain about what people do with power, they are quite averse to seizing it or attempting to hold it themselves, the sort of ruthless upstart people want to talk about here is common in politics but an aberration in the absolute.

Anyone who's actually held leadership will tell you this: what people love most is to criticize from the sidelines and to reap consequence free rewards.

Few enjoy or seek the actual work of making difficult decisions and making oneself the enemy of all.

Power is a curse, all those who actually tasted it will tell you. It eats at all of your life until nothing is left, and for what? In the end you only can make the decisions that allow you to maintain your station.

Does this describe Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump? I don't think so. Vladimir Putin... LOL.

But what has humanity ever hoped for if not for someone else to deal with anarchy? Entire societies built just so we don't have to do this dirty work ourselves. Whole religions spent on dreaming someone is doing it for us when we are too weak.

A very Hobbesian view, but there are clearly many men (and a smaller but not insignificant number of women) who love power much.

Does this describe Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump? I don't think so. Vladimir Putin... LOL.

Oh it certainly does. Obama's not shy about his frustration at being unable to change things because he had to spend his time greasing the wheel. Trump's entire first term was one compromise after another. Clinton is famous for doing a 180 on his economic policy after getting a stern talking to. And Putin's basically "look what you made me do": the foreign policy.

That's just how power is, read Dictator's Handbook for an explanation as to why: you can't rule alone, so you have to balance the needs and wants of your keys to power, and once you've managed that, you get to enjoy a little bit of vanity, as a treat.

Consequential rulers manage to be so because they hold solid well aligned coalitions of easy to satify people, and are competent enough to maintain them. People who rule by whim or principle never do so for long. Ask Liz Truss.

there are clearly many men (and a smaller but not insignificant number of women) who love power much

Undeniable, you certainly mentioned some. But these are not most men.

Obama is frustrated over not having EVEN MORE POWER (as is Trump), but neither consider power a curse. Nor Clinton, nor Trump.

I can think of two rulers throughout history who were actually reluctant -- and the second (Washington) is probably just American lore.

Yeah, in theory.

But, in practice, how often is there actual accountability? And a good way to fire them?

So they claim. But the king is unlikely to be willing to trade places with the peasant, so it seems this is an uneven bargain.

That’s because virtues are illegible and subjective but the benefits of leaderships are not

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