site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26064 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 4, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look dude, you're the one who said that whatever's disclosed while sobbing in that 'Spoons stays in the Spoons.

At any rate, I wasn't around when the PR push you're talking about for euthanize took off (which jurisdiction are we talking about?) It's not legal in the UK, and I am part, albeit only at a very junior level, of the bodies putting forth policy proposals and considering whether to make it legal. I can tell you that we use simultaneously more careful, and more broad, language. It is definitely not being sold as something for those who are in maximal agony and only at the very last minute.

Ha. In all seriousness, though, you're aware that a bill was put forward at the end of last year to legalise it in the UK, right? And that it was basically bounced through the Commons as a private, unscheduled bill with no preparation and is now waiting for approval from the House of Lords, after which it will become law?

And I do remember that the first few times 'assisted dying' was floated it was about really quite specific scenarios, and that even now a lot of the 'pro' polls about it are still quite specific. For example

A poll of more than 7,000 people this month found that almost three-quarters agreed that adults “who are intolerably suffering from an incurable condition and who wish to end their lives” should be allowed medical help to do so. It was conducted by Electoral Calculus for Humanists UK, a campaign group that supports assisted dying.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/16/england-and-wales-assisted-dying-bill-formally-launched-in-house-of-commons

And yet when it comes to the actual law:

An attempt to block access to assisted dying for people suffering mental health problems or because they feel "burdensome" was defeated by a majority of 53. (emphasis mine)

whereas if you look at actual public opinion you see support for a much narrower version, with:

More than half of Britons (57%) would support doctors assisting non-terminally ill patients in physically unbearable conditions with life-ending medication. However, support declines to 35% when considering mental or emotional suffering. (emphasis mine)

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are

and

63% of adults think that assisted dying should not be allowed for those whose primary reason is that they feel like a burden on their families or the NHS.

https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/news/survey-reveals-publics-fears-about-assisted-dying-bill (yes, biased, but the poll was carried out by YouGov)

I've thought a lot about this issue for the last ten years, as many have, and it's hard to escape the feeling that public consent has been laundered by keeping the spotlight firmly on rare, sympathetic cases while the intent of campaigners has always been significantly more far-reaching. Even the chosen term is very obviously a marketing gambit - 'assisted dying' where in reality they aren't dying in any sense other than the philosophical and the point is to legalise deliberately injecting them with something that will kill them. My memory is that these words were originally justified twenty years ago by limiting discussion to the near-death cases I describe, though I admit I can't back that up.

I'm not trying to lay this on you, you're honest about your opinions. But the way the whole thing has been handled leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

My extreme scepticism around these kinds of bills comes from abortion legislation (elsewhere and here in Ireland). The activists pushing for it run the most extreme cases, swear up down and sideways only a very teeny-tiny few will ever need to avail of this if made legal, and then work their socks off behind the scenes to have the language in the legislation as vague as possible (so it can be challenged in court if necessary) and that a way of gaming the system (e.g. having two doctors sign off on abortion in the UK became 'this is only rote rubber stamping') can be introduced to get what they want.

"Intolerable suffering from incurable condition" means what, exactly? If I'm thirty years old and claim that my depression means I have no boyfriend or no career (instead of a dull job) and I see no change on the horizon, am I not intolerably suffering?

There's a lot of wiggle room between "let everyone assume we mean people dying in horrible pain from mortal cancer" and "in practice, just tell the doctor this script with this exact wording to get it".

I've thought a lot about this issue for the last ten years, as many have, and it's hard to escape the feeling that public consent has been laundered by keeping the spotlight firmly on rare, sympathetic cases while the intent of campaigners has always been significantly more far-reaching.

This...seems like a fully generalizable description of basically all political activism in WEIRD democracies??

Yeah, I guess. I hate it. But in particular I feel like I was around for most of this one and so I feel more jerked around by it.

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