site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   11186 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 11, 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.

I knew for a fact that it wasn't true, at least on a per capita basis. I didn't see the point in challenging him, since he seemed highly conscientious and was taking reasonable precautions.

Gay men have more average partners, and per act of anal intercourse, have OOMs higher risk of spreading or catching an infection. Without any moral judgment intended, doing stuff up the butt is dangerous in a way PIV sex isn't, it's not built for such activities. I genuinely don't judge, if I were gay, I'd be having gay sex too, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the practice.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics

MSM accounted for 67% (21,400) of the 31,800 estimated new HIV infections in 2022 and 87% of estimated infections among all males. In 2022, as compared to 2018, the annual number of HIV infections among MSM decreased 10%.

People who acquired HIV through heterosexual contact accounted for 22% (7,000) of the 31,800 estimated new HIV infections in 2022. Men reporting heterosexual contact accounted for 6% (2,100) of estimated new HIV infections, while women reporting heterosexual contact accounted for 15% (4,900) of estimated new HIV infections. In 2022, as compared to 2018, the annual number of HIV infections among people who acquired HIV through heterosexual contact decreased 11%.

https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/poxvirus/mpox/cases-data/technical-report/report-2.html

Recent sexual history was defined as any sex and/or close intimate contact in the three weeks preceding symptom onset. Among 7,378 people with data on both recent sexual history and gender, 78.9% (n=5,820) reported man-to-man sexual contact (Figure 4). We note this proportion is lower than values previously reported for “male-to-male sexual contact” because this updated proportion better accounts for data variations by jurisdictions and is based on more complete data, resulting in more accurate estimates. Some jurisdictions also report sexual orientation to the CDC. Among 4,460 cases with known sexual orientation and gender, 4,159 (93.3%) were gay or bisexual men, 242 (5.4%) were straight or heterosexual men, and 59 (1.3%) were straight, lesbian, or bisexual women (Figure 5).

@5433a since you'd previously asked me the same question.

What's your instance on refusing to allow MSM to donate blood?

https://www.themotte.org/post/787/smallscale-question-sunday-for-december-10/169499?context=8#context

As for blood donations, there exists an optimal threshold for how strictly one wishes to screen blood. I'm sure the cost-benefit analysis today, with robust screening, makes it eminently sensible to forbid those at exceptionally high risk of contagious blood borne disease. But if I'm bleeding to death and there's nothing better available, I would accept potentially contaminated blood, yes, even with 1970s medicine. Dying in a decade beats dying today.

(It turns out I've been here so long I really do already have a comment about everything)

In short, it depends on the base rates, the degree of shortage, and the accuracy of screening tools. I don't think excluding MSM for their HIV risk makes sense these days (since you can test them and screen the blood) and my understanding is that it's not policy in many places.

Screening tests can have false negatives. Perhaps there has been some large, recent improvement, but not that long ago the situation was so dire that blood from MSM that had been tested and found negative was still more likely to be contaminated with blood-born pathogens than non-MSM blood because the base rate was just that much higher.

My issue is claiming, without precise data, whether or not MSMs should be blanket banned from blood donation. I believe I am qualified to make a decision here, if I were to dive deeper into said numbers and do a principled cost-benefit analysis. However, what would the point be? I'm sure more qualified people have already done so. Blood is always in acute shortage, and everyone is desperate to get as much of it in stock as they can without compromising safety more than it helps.

Sure. I'm just noting that the more qualified people did run the numbers, and even with screening tests denying donations from MSM was a good call - at least 10 years ago. It's possible there are better tests, or better HIV suppression medicine these days that might change the math.

Almost all Western nations have lifted blanket restrictions for MSM donating blood. Iceland just removed theirs at the beginning of July. I believe it's just Greece and Croatia left, which probably tells you something about the Greeks.

Based on some quick Googling, there didn't appear to be any significant changes in technology between 2011, when the rules started being relaxed, to what we see today. The retrovirals were available well before then. I take it back, I could probably have done a better job than these regulators, they seem too risk averse. At least they've moved on by now!

Is there a way to have blood donated to use, personally?

Hmm? I presume you don't mean just standard altruistic blood donation do you?

If you want it for personal use, I don't know of any easy options. The closest would be autologous transfusion, such as when someone is going to have a risky surgery in X amount of time, and the doctors save as much of their blood in the lead up (there is cell salvage during surgery where they simply scoop the spilled blood back into you, or perhaps you might have a very rare blood group). That is relatively uncommon. The kind of service I think you're envisioning probably needs you to personally approach a hospital or blood bank, with the hope that they're feeling obliging or can be swayed by money.

Unless you're extremely risk averse, I wouldn't bother. The risk of infection from donor blood is very low these days.

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