site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27434 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So basically, maturity.

Bingo.

An immature child really doesn’t fully understand decision making, and sex is a big thing.

Double bingo. A person that doesn't fully grok that sex makes babies, what STDs are, and the other more subtle risks to intercourse with another person is, definitionally, less capable of consenting to it.

Of course, this puts the onus on the MORE MATURE person to NOT initiate the sexual relationship when they realize the other side isn't really ready.

I think it’s incumbent upon you to provide some test of maturity that would work.

I would be fine with a test in the same vein as that given to teens who want to get their driver's license.

A comprehensive exam that tests, for example, if a person REALLY understands the implications of a sexual relationship. Not on like a deep scientific level, mind, but at least the "ins and outs" (pun intended).

This means that young people can in fact study and prepare for the test, which is a GOOD THING, since it encourages them to learn the necessary information that will prepare them for adulthood. I would also include testing for, say, contractual rights. Maybe someone can't be give student loans unless they can prove they know how compound interest works!

Of course we'd have to have significant anti-cheat measures in place. Which is why I really would prefer there to be some 'objective' "test of willpower" element involved. If you force them to endure some sort of uncomfortable experience without giving in to temptation or dropping out before the finish, its MUCH harder to rig the system.

Yes, this could be the literal equivalent of The Gom Jabbar (but with less severe consequences). If you can't endure a couple minutes of excruciating (but not injurious) pain... I DARESAY you probably aren't 'mature' enough to handle real life. Note that this is LITERALLY how some traditional tribes do it.

I would like to couple that with a requirement that someone, ideally their parents, sponsor them for the test, in the sense that they're affirming "yes, this person is ready for adulthood, and if they screw up I am prepared to help accept the consequences for promoting them too early." So for the next, I dunno, 3 years if they screw up somehow the sponsor is also on the hook for helping fix it.

I do not believe emulating African tribes is a good idea when it comes to maturity rituals, either with this or your idea from the other post about getting beaten up by 10 guys in a row. Firstly, it doesn't seem correct to me that a ghetto thug should be ahead of a glass-jaw nerd on any maturity test in a first-world country (even if the thug is objectively more "fit" for life, the status is wasted on him). Secondly, immediate pain is not a well-optimized maturity test for a first-world country regardless. What brings prosperity in first-world countries is long-term thinking and the ability to lock in over months and years. Not enduring physical pain for half an hour.

Even if Gom Jabbar tests a necessary quality it is far from sufficient.

Secondly, immediate pain is not a well-optimized maturity test for a first-world country regardless. What brings prosperity in first-world countries is long-term thinking and the ability to lock in over months and years. Not enduring physical pain for half an hour.

Fine, include a version of The Marshmallow Test if you want!

There's a plethora of ways to measure a person's understanding of the world and their ability to endure discomfort for future gain.

Under the current regime, the ghetto thug AND the glass-jaw nerd are granted "adulthood" status with all rights that entails by the mere fact of turning eighteen. Do we think this is optimal?

People generally accept that taking a driver's test and passing some arbtitrary standard is enough to get the stamp of approval to operate a 5000 lb vehicle on public streets. I'm mostly suggesting just an expansion of the existing system there.

Under my ideal system, too, anyone is free to transact with a non-adult, but they bear ANY losses that may result if the other non-adult party reneges.

If, for instance, you give $100k in student loans to an 18 y/o who hasn't passed the maturity tests, and they default on them years later, they can't be forced to repay because from a contractual standpoint, they lacked the ability to consent. So they can have the debt dismissed if the lender is stupid enough to give them money.

There's a plethora of ways to measure a person's understanding of the world and their ability to endure discomfort for future gain.

In modern urban society, the fundamental task of adulting is to cash a rent cheque against a pay cheque. If I was going to set up a test for adulthood, the main route to passing it would be to demonstrate that

  • Your name is on a lease
  • The rent has been paid on time for x months (probably x=12)
  • You have paid payroll tax or self-employment tax on earned income of at least double the rent over the life of the lease.

I would also grant adulthood to anyone who completes 2x months of military service with a satisfactory disciplinary record (who otherwise would not be named on a lease) or to students who have reached a certain academic standard (whose income includes scholarships and financial aid which are effectively earned in that the money is paid out against demonstrated responsibility, but not taxed as earned income). The standard I am thinking is roughly completion of the standard maths sequence through linear algebra and multivariable calculus (for STEM students) or completing a course which requires reading a complete Great Book in the foreign-language original (for humanities students).

Whether adult privileges should be granted to married mothers who don't qualify under the other heads is a complication I won't discuss in public.

I am also open to the idea that access to the four boxes of full citizenship should be restricted to people who qualify as an adult under at least two of the above headings.

Under the current regime, the ghetto thug AND the glass-jaw nerd are granted "adulthood" status with all rights that entails by the mere fact of turning eighteen. Do we think this is optimal?

I mean, the optimal test would exclude the thug while including the nerd. It would be nice if the incentives were aligned to teach the nerd some toughness that he is capable of learning along the way, but it shouldn't come at a cost of putting thugs ahead. That would be a perversion of what I believe a society of legal adults should look like (i.e. it shouldn't look like a hunter-gatherer tribe).

It would be nice if the incentives were aligned to teach the nerd some toughness that he is capable of learning along the way,

Agreed and endorsed.

but it shouldn't come at a cost of putting thugs ahead. That would be a perversion of what I believe a society of legal adults should look like (i.e. it shouldn't look like a hunter-gatherer tribe).

I would certainly make the point that thugs will commit thuggery whether or not we give them the license to do so or not. I think the reason we want to toughen up the nerd is so they are capable of embracing ALL of the responsibility we might expect of an adult, including coming to the defense of their community if a bunch of thugs band together and try to take the things they feel they're being denied.

So yeah, we might want to have a test that exclude thugs from certain legal rights... but the larger question there is what do we do with them after the test, they're still around, and still able to act on their preferences, even if our legal system doesn't recognize their status.

Fine, include a version of The Marshmallow Test if you want!

The Marshmallow Test is billed as a test of delayed gratification, but I suspect it is more a test of whether the subject trusts authority.

The Marshmallow Test is billed as a test of delayed gratification, but I suspect it is more a test of whether the subject trusts authority.

Given how small the marshmallows used in the experiment were, it is also a test of the intrinsic desire to pass tests - the reward for passing is the marginal difference between two tiny marshmallows and one, which would not be sufficient extrinsic motivation to get the average 6 year old to do something they don't want to do.

Little of both.

Which is why I really would prefer there to be some 'objective' "test of willpower" element involved. If you force them to endure some sort of uncomfortable experience without giving in to temptation or dropping out before the finish, its MUCH harder to rig the system.

Yes, this could be the literal equivalent of The Gom Jabbar (but with less severe consequences). If you can't endure a couple minutes of excruciating (but not injurious) pain... I DARESAY you probably aren't 'mature' enough to handle real life.

One problem with that is that some people are born with high pain tolerance and would be able to pass such a test well before they are even close to mental maturity, while others are born with low pain tolerance and could not pass such a test at any age despite having far better judgement than the former.

(Another issue is that the entire point of improving society is to reduce the amount of human suffering [some would include animal suffering in this] in the world, and such measures would be a gigantic step backwards for very uncertain, if any, benefit.)

Edit: Would a society, which officially considers those with lower pain tolerance to be lesser, be willing to offer a child undergoing chirurgery for a malfunctioning gallbladder pain management beyond 'bite the leather strap'?

Specifically, this makes women legally children again.

Turns, stares directly into the camera.

I mean IF THE SHOE FITS.

If we're building our notion of consent from a starting point that assumes/accepts that men and women are generally different, this would probably inform many other ways in which we arrange society.

And the thing about children, at least the law attempts to protect them from exploitation.

Consider, math is the one subject that women haven't caught up with men in despite best efforts over DECADES.

Consider Women hold the majority of student loan debt.

And they pay if off slower than men in general.

If it turns out that a lot of women didn't understand compound interest and the actual implications of accepting loans when they signed up, I would 100% be in favor of releasing them from their loans and making the lenders eat it, b/c there was no true 'meeting of the minds' at the time the loans were incurred.

Under my proposed regime, banks could be forced to write off debts made to any persons who didn't pass the 'maturity test' that showed they actually understand how money and interest actually works, if said person defaults on their loan. No actual consent = no enforceable contract. So banks would prefer to lend to 'mature' individuals.

"But that means women aren't able to attend university as easily!"

Maybe a good thing. But the obvious solution is that they can get someone who does pass the maturity test, maybe their parents... maybe their husband to Co-sign a loan. If they think its a good idea.

Isn't that BETTER than saddling them with a debt they'll quite possibly be stuck with forever? Do we PREFER the world where women unknowingly become debt slaves to the one where they have to either actually learn and understand math OR get someone else's help before they can get loaned money?

Do we PREFER the world where women unknowingly become debt slaves

For Western and majoritarian values of "we," the answer clearly appears to be yes.

There's a hypercapitalism argument for it, I think.

If we can get them to inject their dollars into the system and saddle them with a requirement that they must stay productive for years and years on end to service their debt, in theory the system captures more of the value they produce than it otherwise might.

And its even BETTER if they eventually get married, and now their husband's productivity can be siphoned off to service her debt too.

That is, people who aren't smart/informed enough to use their debt load wisely are probably never going to make good decisions with money, so maybe it's better than they hand a decent chunk of their salary over to their creditors in perpetuity, since the creditors can at least invest it more wisely.

I despise this argument line, but I can see why some might support it, EVEN aside from egalitarian concerns.

If it turns out that a lot of women didn't understand compound interest and the actual implications of accepting loans when they signed up

Student loans in the US are generally simple interest, as long as they are paid on time.

Essentially all loans are simple interest if paid on time. Negative amortisation is a notoriously toxic feature, prudent lenders don't allow it, and regulators generally stop imprudent lenders touching it. Negative amortisation was widely available on secured loans (both home mortgages and corporate loans) in the run-up to 2008, and the consequences were as predicted.

And yet there's a whole genre of social media post where a loanholder bemoans the fact that making minimum/interest only payments results in the debt increasing/never going down. or doesn't even bother to check.

(some of these might be playing dumb, but I think most are honest).

I'm genuinely uncertain which percentage of loanholders are literally too innumerate to get what interest and debt ARE. Its more than 1%. I'd bet more than 10%, honestly.

You could put the actual amortization table in front of them and it might not click.

Look at how many people who end up on Caleb Hammer's show are women. (yes, selection effects are in play).

You cannot convince me that these folks should have been entrusted with the ability to take out 5 figure loans.

See also: This recent tweet.

So... Instead of the sloppy but intuitive test of "does she look old enough" one would now have to literally ask if she has a license?

We used to have fucking licenses, it was called “marriage”

And people used to fuck before marriage anyways. The puritans commonly had premarital pregnancies. Covered up by rush marriages.

Fornication was indeed a crime. Like smoking weed today. Illegal and popular.

Fornication was usually punished with a fine, though it could be punished with whipping when the fine was too far out of reach. Both men and women were prosecuted, with an exception that took me embarrassingly long to understand: When accusing a married couple (for conduct before the wedding, naturally), it was common to prosecute only the groom. This is an unspoken discount for the couple out of respect for their subsequent marriage, without having to admit it and undermine the social norm.

Even if we assume that most fornicating couples got away with it (a fair assumption, I think), it still reflects a very different set of norms than those of modern dating.

Fornication was usually punished with a fine,

Fornication was usually covered up (if no pregnancy resulted) or "punished" with a shotgun wedding (if it did). Actual enforcement of the laws against it was vanishingly rare.

When accusing a married couple (for conduct before the wedding, naturally), it was common to prosecute only the groom.

I wouldn't say it was common to prosecute anyone at all for pre-marital sex leading to a shotgun wedding. I can believe it was an order of magnitude more common to prosecute the groom than the bride.

undermine the social norm.

Given the actual customs in cisHajnal Europe and Colonial America between about 1600 and the Industrial Revolution, I strongly suspect the actual social norm was "maintain plausible deniability and don't complain if you end up shotgun-married".

I was replying in the context of Puritan Massachusetts, which @TIRM alluded to.

As I said, I suppose that most folks got away with it even there. But the Puritans were aware that they were doing something weird and difficult with the society they were trying to build, so they were willing to do some things differently. Their courts were way more willing to get involved in family matters than most, for good or for ill.

If you haven’t read it, I recommend Edmund S. Morgan’s book The Puritan Family. It’s very readable and very interesting.

Puritan Massachusetts

The home of bundling. Sure looks like a way of allowing pre-marital sex with plausible deniability (admittedly in a relationship which is well on the way towards marriage, but lots of short engagements and premature births expected).

Now that's interesting. I would have assumed married couples would get a free pass for possible past fornication. Sometimes the first baby comes a bit quicker than normal for some young married couples.

Seduction laws, on the other hand, were enforced. It’s probably impossible to have this setup without them- get married and hope for the best is a great alternative to getting prosecuted.

Is that any different from checking a girl who looks questionable's ID to check the age?

Very

  1. I can with a great degree of safety (90%? 95%?) avoid questionable girls right off the bat by sight.

  2. I can avoid places where underage girls hang out pretty easily and costlessly

  3. No one actually checks their dates ID.

I can't avoid places "people who didn't take or can't pass the sex test" hang out. I can't read it at a glance. I'd HAVE to actually check.

I can't avoid places "people who didn't take or can't pass the sex test" hang out

I mean, yes you can.

This allows any venue to directly filter out people that haven't passed the maturity test.

Go places that bounce anyone that isn't 'sexually mature' from entry.

I'd HAVE to actually check.

I'm unclear why this seems like an ardurous burden to you.

I'm unclear why this seems like an ardurous burden to you.

Perhaps he believes that having to assess documentation to ensure that the state has allowed you and the young woman in question to bang is going to be deeply unsexy. Not unlike mandating STD test results or consent forms beforehand.

After some thought, and spending time with kids, I have come to the opinion that my own transition to adulthood is probably best delineated by when I stopped being bored: the world is an interesting place and there is far more stuff I want to do and skills I want to acquire than time to do them all. I won't say I don't procrastinate ever, but I am never sitting around wondering what to do. Kids aren't very good at this, in my experience.

To consider a hare-brained thought, The Internet is a (questionably ethical) form of Gom Jabbar. "What's in the box?" "Slop. Endless slop. And also the collective knowledge and creative works of mankind."

The test is whether you fall for any of the well-trod failure modes of The Internet, or actually drive to and engage in self-actualization as Maslow intended.

I had the discussion with friends recently about what being an adult is, and my position was kind of close to yours, it's that an adult has agency and initiative. If an adult sees that something has to be done, he will take into consideration that he can be the one to do it. He doesn't have to always do it, but he is confident he could and sometimes will. A child will only do things when asked or encouraged to do it, or by following others. An adult will plan a vacation trip unprompted, a child will wait for friends or family to invite them. If someone doesn't do it for them, then they will complain that their life is boring, even though they will not do anything to improve it themselves.

There are many old children. Some even elderly. And there are some very young adults.

Very interesting take on it.

MAYBE if we coordinated well as a civilization we could test everyone before they are allowed access to the free-range internet. If they fall into the slop and gambling and scammy side of things, we restrict them to the Kiddie pool. "You can access Streaming Sites, Facebook, and play multiplayer video games. You can send and receive e-mails and you have access to porn if you're old enough, but you are intentionally unable to ever transmit your financial information to anyone."

(I will grant that this is just begging for a larger censorship regime. Remember I'm already doing magical thinking that we could have civilizational coordination to safely protect kids and the vulnerable)

To play along with the analogy, the Gom Jabbar doesn't work if the test is safe. It may not be enough to run the test in a sandbox: it's easy enough to behave "correctly" a limited test, and far harder to consistently buckle down and get work done instead of Motteposting watching TikTok videos all day.

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