site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8727 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 28, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But if my only 2 choices are "throw them in prison forever" or "build free mental health clinics and maybe they will choose to use them

I would argue that if you pick door 1 in this thought experiment, you are a bad person. Almost certainly from a utilitarian perspective (life in prison vs small annoyances * some number of people, unless the number of people is ludicrously high).

I also want to stress that I'm not really caring about root causes either. Another solution that solves the problem in 1-2 years, if there was political will, and is also not abhorrent is: Build cheap-ass housing, screw the NIMBYs (probably compensate them tho), force them off the street.

The primary purpose of the housing isn't to fix the root cause. It's to make the force them off the street part morally justifiable because you've given them another option. (Plus it is likely to help the root cause, but that's not a load-bearing part of the argument).

I would argue that if you pick door 1 in this thought experiment, you are a bad person. Almost certainly from a utilitarian perspective (life in prison vs small annoyances * some number of people, unless the number of people is ludicrously high).

Only if you lean towards a negative utilitarian perspective. The steady worsening of aspirational cities has incredibly high utilitarian cost from my perspective.

What's your take on something like Wireheading City? It seems no less feasible than any other proposal to force people off the street.

I don't think you need to be a negative utilitarian, a lot depends on exactly how bad the person is vs how bad you think prison is. And as I mentioned elsewhere, prison is very very bad.

Wireheading city could be better than prison, but fraught with potential issues. Pure pointless hedonic pleasure isn't the same as utility. But honestly, less extreme versions of this are not particularly objectionable, and could even be compared to progressive harm reduction approaches (way way different in degree though).

Can I ask, what do you think is so bad about prison? If you're a homeless guy who goes to prison, you get a roof over your head, a bed to sleep in, three meals a day, and a certain amount of access to a gym, a library, and healthcare. If you're thinking 'freedom', well, there's negative and positive freedom, and a homeless, mentally ill person isn't positively free because they lack the resources and probably the wherewithall to actually do almost all activities, and are forced to spend much of their time scrounging for the basic necessities of life - in my opinion they may be more free in prison because their basic needs are met.

Can I also ask, on a totally different tack, in what sense is it unjust to send a law-breaker to prison? Why would you be morally 'bad' to do so?

I think you're painting far too rosy a picture of prison, and eliding over massive potentially negative harms (such as the abhorrent 4% chance of rape every year edit: less abhorrent, but still bad - 4% "sexual victimization", 2.6% chance of what most would typically call "rape" ). I think treating prison as anything but an extremely negative experience for the majority of inmates is not realistic.

I agree that that mental illness and freedom have a complicated philosophical relationship. My general attitude would be results-focused:

  • Would going to prison disincentive others from this behaviour? (potentially for the "just assholes", no for the crazies)
  • Would it help this individual in the future (like you mention in your post, but I'm very confident the answer is usually no)
  • Does it prevent this person from causing harm to others? (yes)
  • Does it give satisfaction to the people this person has harmed? (Unlike other lefty leaning folks, I think retribution does have a place in criminal punishment, but there's a very very high bar for it. I don't think yelling at people on the street passes it. For murder, rape, serious assault? Yes screw that person. For yelling like a crazy person? Probably not, let's be calm and just try to help everyone involved as much as is practically possible)
  • Does it harm the person in question (yes, definitely)
  • How much is this going to cost vs just putting them up in a cheap room and telling them (forcing them) to go home when they get drunk/high/crazy?

This is a tough question, but the answer isn't to stop considering the rights of the homeless/mentally ill person at all.

Can I also ask, on a totally different tack, in what sense is it unjust to send a law-breaker to prison? Why would you be morally 'bad' to do so?

If you're getting the impression that I'm anti-prison or anti-punishment in general I'm not. But it has to be justified, and that justification should include the cost to the law-breaker themselves. It's the general idea of proportionality - it's pretty uncontroversial the the punishment should fit the crime, and if you're discussing changing punishments you can't just saw "whatever I don't care". You actually have to suggest what's appropriate.

I've mentioned in other comments - I agree the current level of tolerance and punishment for this anti-social behaviour is too low, and this is also an issue that affects me personally. The answer isn't prison forever, or forced labour, you have to have a limit somewhere.

I think you're painting far too rosy a picture of prison, and eliding over massive potentially negative harms (such as the abhorrent 4% chance of rape every year).

Down the rabbit hole a bit, but the actual report cited there doesn't seem like a 4% chance of what I would typically see referred to as "rape":

Approximately 1.1% of prisoners and 0.7% of jail inmates said they were forced or pressured to have nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An additional 1.0% of prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates said they had experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only or unwanted touching of specific body parts in a sexual way by another inmate.

An estimated 1.5% of prison inmates and 1.4% of jail inmates reported that they had sex or sexual contact unwillingly with staff as a result of physical force, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges. An estimated 1.4% of all prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff.

Plenty of bad stuff going around, but I think it's unhelpful to put these all in the same category.

Would you agree with the 4% if I softened my language from "rape" -> "sexual victimization" like the report uses? I suppose the "willing inmate-guard" relationships don't count for as much, but I still have concerns there.

And I would still argue that a 2.6% chance of "actual" rape is still very bad.

I challenge someone to refute the central point which is "Prison really, really sucks. Yes even if you're mentally ill and on the street." Any arguments would also have to explain why these people are not trying to get into prison with any regularity.

Sure, I think prison is quite unpleasant. The nitpick here was strictly about the specific number, not the general claim.

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