site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29693 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar yesterday, a culture war-y case about Colorado’s law banning talk therapists from discussing “conversion therapy” with minor clients.

The oral argument ended up hinging on a different culture war question: is strictly talk therapy – without prescriptions, shocks, clinical analysis, official diagnosing, whatever – inherently medical? I.e., is addressing “mental health” through conversation really “health” at all, or is it something far simpler?

Colorado admitted a priest or a life coach could have the very conversations that it was banning therapists from partaking in; why would the difference in title suddenly change the classification of the act itself?

Some arguments tried to say that talk therapy is medical conduct because it triggers a physiological reaction in the brain, but all speech has the capacity to do that – someone telling you they love you can release dopamine and oxytocin; someone telling you “gross, no” after you ask them on a date can create a crushing response; etc. And yet, speech in a general sense continues to receive protections that conduct does not.

Does “medicine” need to be something that physically manipulates and alters the body? Does medicine need to be something directed towards solving an illness?

I can see the argument that mental health as addressed through a clinical diagnosis and prescriptions is medicine. But I am struggling to understanding talk therapy as falling into the medical category, in part because much of talk therapy isn’t related to the prevention, treatment, or cure of mental illness – a lot of talk therapy is simply asking for help with a difficult relationship, achieving a deeper understanding of self, or venting to someone who is trained to recognize self-perception road blocks.

Taking the view that medicine is about preventing/treating illness, it would be especially odd to view conversion therapy conversations as medical – after all, society has moved past viewing same-sex attraction as a disease, supposedly. So why then would conversations about attraction be medical in nature in this context? Is it from a larger need for therapy to be considered health more broadly?

Forms of talk therapy are commonly and can be reasonably considered medical treatment as self_made points out with CBT. I have sympathy for the gay teens whose parents shove them into therapy to talk the gay away. I can see why that experience could be stressful or even counter-productive in cases where a predisposition works against the effort. *

I did not put 2+2 together until now, but I am moderately confident I know someone who had a hand in this law. Colorado has interests pushing for it to be the trans state. Apparently they are in dire need of lobbyists who can craft more sound legislation. Colorado thought it solved the the speech problem by limiting it to licensed professionals who could be doing a medicine by exempting priests or your WoW guild leader.

No one seems to have posted the text of the law in question or the transcript for oral arguments:

"CONVERSION THERAPY" MEANS ANY PRACTICE OR TREATMENT BY A LICENSEE, REGISTRANT, OR CERTIFICATE HOLDER THAT ATTEMPTS OR PURPORTS TO CHANGE AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, INCLUDING EFFORTS TO CHANGE BEHAVIORS OR GENDER EXPRESSIONS OR TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE SEXUAL OR ROMANTIC ATTRACTION OR FEELINGS TOWARD INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SEX.

(b) "CONVERSION THERAPY" DOES NOT INCLUDE PRACTICES OR TREATMENTS THAT PROVIDE: (I) ACCEPTANCE, SUPPORT, AND UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FACILITATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S COPING, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND IDENTITY EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT , INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION-NEUTRAL INTERVENTIONS TO PREVENT OR ADDRESS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OR UNSAFE SEXUAL PRACTICES, AS LONG AS THE COUNSELING DOES NOT SEEK TO CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY; OR (II) ASSISTANCE TO A PERSON UNDERGOING GENDER TRANSITION

Helpfully, the law doesn't define many or any of these terms including sexual orientation, gender identity, and affirmation. Perhaps Colorado courts figured that out. I haven't. The Solicitor General argues that of course the law doesn't ban all treatment to change an individual's sexual orientation. That would be silly, because then the statute would also prevent the affirmation practices it seeks to protect. Only the bad version of A-B is illegal in her and Colorado's view, though it is not clear why this is the case to Alito. From oral arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: -- a difference between the argument that you're making now and the argument that I thought we rejected in NIFLA that professional speech is a special category that's outside normal First Amendment scrutiny, but I'll -- let me put that aside and ask about your interpretation of the statute at this stage in the litigation. And let me give you this example. Suppose an adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist and says he attracted -- he's attracted to other males but feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings, and he wants to end or lessen them and asks for the therapist's help in doing so. Under your interpretation of the statute, is that banned?

MS. STEVENSON: So, Your Honor, our interpretation of the statute turns entirely on whether the purpose of the therapy is to change the person's sexual orientation or gender identity. If that minor --

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, what's the answer to -- what is the answer to my question? Is that banned or is it not banned?

MS. STEVENSON: If the therapist told him or he asked can you help me become straight, the answer would be it would be banned. If it was can you help me cope with my feelings as to how I am and how I want to live my life, that's permitted... This is the way we've interpreted the statute from the beginning of this case. It's the way both of the lower courts interpreted the statute. It's the way every state that has this statute interprets it. And the reason why is because the harms from conversion therapy come from when you tell a young person you can change this innate thing about yourself, and they try and they try and they fail, and then they have shame and they're miserable, and then it ruins their relationships with their family or --

JUSTICE ALITO: I understand -- I understand all of those arguments. What I don't understand is how you can square your interpretation with the plain meaning of this statute

[...]

JUSTICE ALITO: Are you suggesting that everything beginning with the word "including" is irrelevant? That just -- you just want all of that deleted from the statute

MS. STEVENSON: No, it's -- it's illustrative [...] But, if the -- if the minor wants to start dressing like a boy to match his gender identity not because --

JUSTICE ALITO: -- that's just not the way language works...

If you see someone receive talk therapy to turn themselves gay, well, you know that's legal. If you see someone receive talk therapy to turn themselves ungay you know it's illegal. Simple as.

I find it difficult to approach these concepts in a legal setting with any credulity. Sure, I usually have an understanding of what an individual refers to when they mention something about their gender identity. I have ideas on how certain identities are shaped, and an opinion on what extent a "gender identity" is "innate" or the result of repetition or persuasion. An opinion is the extent of it. Someone tap me when there's overwhelming empirical evidence that you can't talk the trans away.

But I am struggling to understanding talk therapy as falling into the medical category, in part because much of talk therapy isn’t related to the prevention, treatment, or cure of mental illness

Eh? That's plain inaccurate. "Talk therapy" is a broad term but encompasses modalities like CBT which are the first choice for many psychiatric conditions like depression or OCD, even before the drugs. That isn't a whimsical choice, it's based on dozens of meta-analyses and reviews of the literature alongside rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/adult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey/survey-of-mental-health-and-wellbeing-england-2023-24/mental-health-treatment-and-service-use

Currently receiving psychological therapy among CIS-R 12+ = 17.9%.

Currently receiving psychological therapy among CIS-R 0-5 = 1.6%.

Ratio of indicated to no-diagnosis therapy, per adult = 17.9% / 1.6% ≈ 11.2 to 1. If you restrict “indicated” to severe symptoms only (CIS-R 18+), the rate is 22.3%, giving ≈ 13.9 to 1.

In other words, at least in the UK, people are >11 times more likely to be in therapy because of a mental illness than they are just to chat or vent. The latter is practically a side-hustle. I can't imagine the numbers would be totally different in the States.

Some arguments tried to say that talk therapy is medical conduct because it triggers a physiological reaction in the brain, but all speech has the capacity to do that – someone telling you they love you can release dopamine and oxytocin; someone telling you “gross, no” after you ask them on a date can create a crushing response; etc. And yet, speech in a general sense continues to receive protections that conduct does not.

Oxygen plays an essential physiological role just about everywhere, not just the brain. It's not usually considered medical when it's just... in the air, but nobody objects to being billed for it when it's a concentrated canister being given by a mask or tube when your lungs aren't doing so hot.

As I’ll continue to say, if Joe exotic can turn men gay, it stands to reason someone, somewhere, can turn them straight. This amounts to viewpoint discrimination in therapy, which is mostly garbage anyways.

My conversion therapy was done with a priest, and featured mildly awkward talk therapy and homework exercises that were psychological in nature. There’s no reason a therapist couldn’t have done it but there’s also no reason it needed a therapist(as indeed, I didn’t use). Restricting it to a different set of practitioners seems both small potatoes but also not something that has a justification.

...if Joe exotic can turn men gay, it stands to reason someone, somewhere, can turn them straight.

And if my aunt has wings, it stands to reason that she doesn't hit her tail on the ground.

Okay, I'm lost.

The quoted statement rests on a premise that is not true; Mr Exotic is not capable of causing a man to be attracted to men, who was not previously thus.

This amounts to viewpoint discrimination in therapy

I think we generally permit viewpoint discrimination in professional services. You can't claim that the viewpoint of "disease is caused by bad humors" and the viewpoint of "disease is caused by spiritual rot" and the viewpoint of "disease is caused by microbial or viral infection" have to be treated the same by medical licensure.

Then why does everybody and their dog freak out about transgender therapies being banned for lack of evidence, and start appealing to patient autonomy instead?

Patient autonomy is very different from practitioner autonomy. A doctor is required to express the viewpoint that tuberculous is caused by a bacterium rather than bad humors. A patient is entitled to refuse to take antibiotics to treat it.

Oh, so then people definitely shouldn't say that it's a decision between a child, their parent, and the doctor, when the doctor is making statements that aren't backed by evidence. Like when a doctor says something like "puberty blockers are fully reversible", or "would you rather have a happy daughter or a dead son (/the other way around)" something should happen to them, right?

Yes, that is the law in Tennessee and about half the rest of states.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf

Yeah, I know. My original question was about the grounds for the negative to reaction to such laws, if we assume the statement in your comment was true.

I imagine they differ from you about what the evidence backs.

Ultimately the government does get to decide what the line is between permissible and impermissible medical advice. This is viewpoint discrimination, no matter where the government decides to draw that line.

More comments

As I’ll continue to say, if Joe exotic can turn men gay, it stands to reason someone, somewhere, can turn them straight. This amounts to viewpoint discrimination in therapy, which is mostly garbage anyways.

...Are we suggesting therapeutic meth addiction as a youth therapy?

Maybe teens might benefit from prescription desoxyn, which is what we call it when avoiding a prescription for "1 meth please". I'll have to look at the studies.

My conversion therapy was done with a priest

Yeah, they're very powerful. Once you hear their message- powerful enough to be condensed into a single word- all of a sudden your clothes (and banners, and even your cars on occasion) change color and you're instantly batting for the other team.

In all seriousness, I have no idea how you'd teach a man more interested in beards and shoulders to love tits and ass instead. I get that that maybe isn't the primary driver, but then again, if it was comprehensible the mechanism of action would be more well-known to the point you'd have more people casually attempting it. Then again, I wouldn't expect people to shout such a conversion from the rooftops, so...

it stands to reason someone, somewhere, can turn them straight

But that would require a bunch of tomboys and/or cougars willing to debase themselves (for the most unattractive men available, given a traditional female standpoint) in a professional capacity, and those are in short enough supply already.

but also not something that has a justification

Do anti-blasphemy laws help keep people in the faith?

In all seriousness, I have no idea how you'd teach a man more interested in beards and shoulders to love tits and ass instead.

Men are very imprintable sexually, you just need to make then orgasm to the “correct” images, thoughts, and experiences enough times, in addition to removing whatever sexual hangups they have towards women.

With this in mind, it’s pretty obvious why Christian conversion therapy doesn’t work.

you just need to make then orgasm to the “correct” images, thoughts, and experiences enough times,

So Clockwork Orange-style reprogramming done in an orgone accumulator?

The number of married men with children that eventually go gay say this is at the very least not universal.

Married sex is enough to turn any man gay

Well, then I must not be a man, as this didn't work whenever I tried it. Despite the insistence of a particular lasagna-loving cat I do indeed, appear, sadly?, to be so immune.

I could perhaps have been shocked out of that state if my mind was changed a long time ago, but therein lies the problem- if it's competition a boy is rejecting, you might have to give him a... bit of slow pitch so that he actually bothers. But why would any sane man (or woman, for that matter) allow a good woman to waste herself on play-dominance training for such a boy to the strict detriment of his more natively competition-minded peers?

Yeah, they're very powerful. Once you hear their message- powerful enough to be condensed into a single word- all of a sudden your clothes (and banners, and even your cars on occasion) change color and you're instantly batting for the other team.

Roses are red

Violets are blue

...wololo...

Roses are blue

Roses are red
Violets are blue
...wololo...
Now roses are too!

Colorado admitted a priest or a life coach could have the very conversations that it was banning therapists from partaking in; why would the difference in title suddenly change the classification of the act itself?

I think you are placing too much on the classification of the conduct rather than the social framing.

To diverge for a bit, there are plenty of personal trainers where the fundamentals of what they do (determine what is an appropriate exercise/stretch and teach it) is substantially the same as what physical therapists do. Same for diet consultants vs dietician. Or even massage artists as compared to chiros as compared to [EDIT: FIXED THIS SPOT] PM&R docs.

What I think is fairly critical is not about what they do in practice but how it's held out to the public and whether that person gets the assurance the practitioner is notionally vetted and supervised in some fashion (I'm not taking a position on whether this training/vetting/supervision is worth anything).

It's also similar to the way society distinguishes between being a financial advisor vs being Jim Kramer giving advice and opinions on the market. Or Caleb for that matter when it's household finances. No one is going to jail for the conduct of recommending index funds (or 0DTE SPY calls) but you can't publicly portray that as professional financial advice.

So in that lens, restrictions on what the licensed folks can do aren't triggered by conduct, but who gets to publicly represent themselves as a specific kind of professional. When the restrictions are paired to that title but not otherwise applied to individuals doings substantially the same thing, it seems clear to me that the conduct itself isn't really what's targeted.

Or even massage artists as compared to chiros as compared to orthopedic surgeons.

Hold up now. The primary role of an orthopedic surgeon is to provide medical and surgical management for orthopedic issues. A chiropractor is a physical therapist with less training, delusions of grandeur, and a notable fatality rate (dissections).

Everything that a chiropractor can do that is actual medicine is better served by a PT or PM&R doctor, and a lot of what they do is placebo bullshit at best, actively dangerous frighteningly often.

Sorry, you're right. I didn't mean orthopedic surgeon, I mean osteopath/PM&R types.

My bad.

No worries, I'm just here to be ornery on medicine topics periodically. >_>

I mean, even ignoring that, a chiropractor normally doesn’t do actual surgery.

This perhaps a bit of a tangent, but for a while I have struggled with the idea of 'conversion therapy'.

At the one end, it's easy to understand a minimalist definition of it, and why treatments that meet that minimum definition should be banned - we're talking about things like using electric shocks to artificially create aversions to certain sexual stimuli.

On the other, I have seen the phrase 'conversion therapy' to refer to any kind of treatment or even just conversation around the idea of a person abstaining from same-sex sexual contact. Some time ago I read a document with some personal stories from two progressive Christians describing their experiences with 'conversion therapy', and in both cases the so-called conversion therapy was just another Christian telling them that they shouldn't have sex with someone of their own gender. That kind of maximalist definition of conversion therapy is clearly absurd, and would ban certain kinds of speech.

I feel as though I have seen this gambit many times and that it ought to have a name. Definitional expansion? You start with something that is obviously bad, and you have a word for the thing that's obviously bad - conversion therapy, violence, racism, genocide, child abuse, and so on. Then you want to draw attention to some issues that might be related to the bad thing, but don't quite fit under the same heading, so you just use the same word, but expand its meaning, hoping that the negative affect the word is already loaded with will come along with you. So meat is murder, or words are violence, or immigration is genocide, or your pastor telling you that homosexuality is bad is conversion therapy, or telling your kids that Santa Claus is real is child abuse. Trivial use of the word eventually weakens its meaning and even attempts to use it in the original context, for the obviously bad thing, fall flat. This is why telling Republicans that they're racist is pointless now.

I can understand the initial impulse, from the activist direction. If you want to expand a cause or mobilise people, trying to hook into their pre-existing moral logic is a good idea. "Meat is murder" is a cliché now and I think it's ineffective, but I can see how it is a shorthand for a serious moral argument: meat-eating depends upon killing living creatures in a way that a vegetarian could argue is morally analogous to murder. But the more you use that tactic, the weaker the words become, and you undermine yourself.

Is there a word for this process? Or at least something to say when you notice somebody doing it?

This is the core of it. The activist in charge of enforcing this will consider everything conversion therapy. I think 10 years ago Jesse Singal covered a case like this in Canada. There was a gender clinic where the doctor simply let little girls and boys know "Hey, you can like boy things as a girl, and it doesn't mean you are a boy", and he was accused of conversion therapy and his clinic was shut down. Activist found someone willing to make much more lurid accusations against him, but then when Jesse Singal found that guy, and asked him about his experiences, it turned out it was a completely different doctor!

Rest assured, if this law stands, any course of treatment which fails to maximize trans outcomes will be considered "conversion therapy". I wouldn't be shocked if it even impacts de-trans individuals seeking care, as their doctors won't be able to provide "conversion therapy" to help them return to their natal sex, as best as is still available anyways.

This has been relevant to me in professional contexts - I don't want to get into specifics, but I have seen laws drafted on 'conversion therapy' that, if taken literally, would make it illegal for a pastor to pray with someone.

It's not that rare a situation that a religious person feels same-sex attraction, wants to resist that attraction and not act on it, and requests help and comfort from one of their spiritual authorities, or even just from brothers or sisters in the faith. Yet I have seen proposed laws that would criminalise that.

Because modern progressive culture sees that as analogous to praying with an anorexic for them to lose weight, ie abetting self-harm.

Which is funny since the progressive approach to trans issues is analogous to them cutting off an anorexic's body parts to help them lose weight.

‘Embrace good things, discourage bad ones’ is a popular policy.

Is there a word for this process?

Concept creep.

Per Quillette, The Boy Who Inflated the Concept of 'Wolf'.

I’m not sure it qualifies as concept creep, but you can get countless examples if you search “wolf inflation.”

wolf inflation

I am so mad that I searched this.

Is there a word for this process?

Murderism

Is there a word for this process? Or at least something to say when you notice somebody doing it?

It’s like some kind of... some kind of two tiered argument castle thingy.

...okay, fair, that made me laugh.

Again, I don't think it's quite the same - the motte-and-bailey is a tactical move you make in an individual argument, whereas this is more like concept creep - but it is close enough that you got me.

or telling your kids that Santa Claus is real is child abuse

"Child abuse" is poorly defined, but lying to your children is definitely bad, and I don't think this is nearly the trivial matter that people usually think of it as.

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—

Death waved a hand.

AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.

― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

GNU Terry Pratchett.

Santa is a harmless fantasy that kids get to believe in for a precious few years. I don't think it's in the least bad to encourage the belief.

Lying to your children isn't definitionally bad! We lie to children all the time.

Today I lied to my kids by telling them I was a pajama robot programmed with the mission of chasing down and pajamaing all the children. When I was a kid we played werewolf/mafia a lot in school.

There are all manner of imagination, pretenses, games, and kayfabes. If you don't teach your children that, you are not giving a key cognitive skill.

From "Children Believe Every Lie" by Eneasz Brodski:

I was raised Jehovah’s Witness. As part of this, I was taught as soon as I could understand the concepts that Santa wasn’t real. Neither was the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a near-autistic dedication to being truthful. While many religions informally refer to themselves as “the Faith,” (“she is strong in the Faith” etc) Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to themselves as “the Truth.” As part of this, they believe it’s wrong to lie to children about made-up characters.

This made me special. I knew things my classmates didn’t know. I knew they were being lied to. I knew my parents cared enough about me to not lie to me. The message was very clear: we won’t even lie to you about Santa, despite how popular that lie is. You can also trust us when we tell you the Trinity is just as fake as Santa is. And the secondary message: These people will lie to their own children for no other reason than because it’s fun. You can’t trust them one bit.

When I came to realize all supernaturalism is a lie, and the only way one with intellect and curiosity can believe it is to intentionally blind themselves, I became very angry with everyone who should have known better (or DID know better) and lied to me. Being a Jehovah’s Witness is a life-altering decision. Honestly, any sort of theism should have massive repercussions on how one lives. By lying to me they had ruined my map of the territory so badly that massive amounts of effort had be burned for nothing. And all that trust I had? Burned in the fires of epistemic hell. The sheer betrayal of having been lied to so much but people I trusted so deeply left me angry and seething for nearly two decades.

When I excised that belief from myself I thought that at least I was free now. I would obviously still be wrong or misled about some things in life, but I would never have to again deal with discovering that a bedrock fact about all of reality was literal lies and everything I had been building upon was sand and vapor.

I was of course very wrong.

...

I’ve woken up to how much this happens since that day. It’s everywhere, and I kinda hate it. I almost want to say that parents SHOULD tell their children that Santa is real. That way they learn very quickly in life that everyone will lie to them without hesitation for the most trivial of reasons. They can never trust anyone to accurately represent what they actually think is true, not even the people who claim to love them more than anything else in the world. It would maybe prevent them from reaching their late-30s still believing that leprechauns grant wishes.

But I don’t really think that. I believe that fighting to be as honest as possible will yield good returns if resources are invested into it. I have a vision of a world where acknowledging openly and explicitly that we are acting as if something is true without it actually being true is far more acceptable than just pretending it’s true. Acknowledging that the reality of a situation doesn’t match what we aspire to *shouldn’t* matter, and hopefully we’ll get there someday.

Together we can take the first step, and not say things we know to be false to our children as if they were true. Down with Santa, now and forever.

When I came to realize all supernaturalism is a lie, and the only way one with intellect and curiosity can believe it is to intentionally blind themselves, I became very angry with everyone who should have known better (or DID know better) and lied to me.

If the Witnesses were sincere in their faith, they weren't lying to him. They were flagrantly, wilfully ignorant, but not technically lying.

He thinks he has left the faith, but he still sounds like a Witness.

I almost want to say that parents SHOULD tell their children that Santa is real. That way they learn very quickly in life that everyone will lie to them without hesitation for the most trivial of reasons.

yes_chad.jpg

I literally don't know a single kid who had the problems he had with it, and I strongly suspect his JW upbringing has to do with it (and/or autistic inclinations unsurprisingly inherited from his parents). Not saying there are none otherwise, but it's just extremely rare. The average kid play-pretends a lot naturally already, and they instinctively pick up on Santa being somewhere in the same area, but they're not sure. Then as they get older they notice further facts solidifying that impression, and maybe have a short, smug santa-isn't-real phase, but they quickly join in again on the play-acting ... because it's fun. The "santa-lie" is a great way to indirectly teach kids how to distinguish between truth and fantasy, and the fact that ultimately this is something you can only ever do yourself, for yourself.

Given the social consequences of being a Santa-isn’t-real edgelord child, I think it may be poor parenting to spill the beans too early.

Before having kids I thought I was definitely not going to entertain Santa delusions, now I definitely am. Looking out for their social wellbeing is one of my big value-adds. Kids can’t anticipate how bad it would be for them to be generally whiny, smelly, angry, etc.

It's interesting, my earliest Santa memories were that St Nicholas was a real person, that we give gifts at Christmas because of his generous example, and that many people (including my Grandparents) liked to pretend to give gifts from St Nicholas (aka Santa Claus). But I don't remember ever spilling the beans to any other kids even accidentally.

Today my only regret is not learning about the Santa legend that he punched out a heretic (often Arius himself) at the Council of Nicaea earlier.

I’ve done well doing well the “I can neither confirm nor deny the Santa Question” with my kids.

I also don’t make a big deal about Santa either so it works.

At what ages does one normally outgrow Santa belief in America? I never believed in Santa (I recall being told around the age of 4 or 5 and finding it absurd, especially since our family didn't have a chimney), but also, Korea didn't have as much of a Santa culture as America. I moved to America in 1st grade, and I don't recall my non-believing of Santa ever being something that even came up, so I figured that, by grade school age, kids had outgrown it. But it sounds like that's actually not the case?

Elementary school.

At what ages does one normally outgrow Santa belief in America?

18, in my case.

I figured that if God is real, then reality is intrinsically magical anyway, and I may as well keep believing in Santa too.

8-10. Most parents put considerable effort into the appearance of "Christmas magic". There's an adorable age where they're old enough to question, but afraid of what they might find out. They'll test their parents and gossip among themselves. But my own were afraid that if I knew that they knew, then I might not bother with the presents ritual, so they pretended to believe longer. And once it was explicit, they solemnly accepted the responsibility to not break the kayfabe for their younger cousins.

If it's something you've been told since before you can walk, it takes a decent bit of development to get to the point where you notice the fact that it's completely incongruent with everything you know about the rest of the world. In a way, it's a method of gently teaching children that the only real magic is what we do ourselves.

8-10. Most parents put considerable effort into the appearance of "Christmas magic". There's an adorable age where they're old enough to question, but afraid of what they might find out. They'll test their parents and gossip among themselves. But my own were afraid that if I knew that they knew, then I might not bother with the presents ritual, so they pretended to believe longer. And once it was explicit, they solemnly accepted the responsibility to not break the kayfabe for their younger cousins.

This is the point where the potential harm is. If a child spends 1-2 years thinking "Santa breaks my model of reality but I can't think deeply about this because the presents will stop coming" then they are learning to suppress curiosity for fear of punishment.

FWIW, I understood that Santa was the same type of being as God and Jesus*, as opposed to the same type of being as my Mum or the Queen, as early as I remember having complex thoughts - certainly before age 6. Having been taught about Santa therefore made me less likely to accept Christianity as an older child (whether this is good or bad is unclear). I had Santa, God and Jesus in the same bucket as Mickey Mouse and Peter the High King of Narnia by the time I was 9.

* My parents were not Christian, but the local primary school was a C of E school so I was partially raised Christian

This is the point where the potential harm is. If a child spends 1-2 years thinking "Santa breaks my model of reality but I can't think deeply about this because the presents will stop coming" then they are learning to suppress curiosity for fear of punishment.

No way man, I think it's a great practice. You institute a society-wide gaslighting conspiracy toward children that involves nothing but generous rewards, but which is so fantastical that they're bound to figure it out eventually, and then you let nature take its course. Everyone learns that sometimes everyone else is just bullshitting, even if they really do mean well.

I wish we put this much effort into teaching everyone other equally important lessons.

Plus there's the part where you realize the conspiracy and then get to join in on it. I mean that feeling as a kid is the closest thing to being invited to join the Illuminati that any of us are likely to get. You've gained sufficient wisdom that the adults require your collaboration.

I mean that feeling as a kid is the closest thing to being invited to join the Illuminati that any of us are likely to get.

Well you know, until the other big secret everyone pretends to believe, you know the one I'm talking about.

More comments

I wish we put this much effort into teaching everyone other equally important lessons.

Just curious, do you have any specific lessons in mind here? The idea is at least intriguing.

This is the point where the potential harm is. If a child spends 1-2 years thinking "Santa breaks my model of reality but I can't think deeply about this because the presents will stop coming" then they are learning to suppress curiosity for fear of punishment.

Lesson successful, then. That 'harm' is a very valuable lesson of the world which failure to learn can lead to far greater harms.

Curiosity does bring forth risk. One can appeal to a just world protest that it shouldn't, but it certainly does. If a young child is curious what a hot stove feels like or a poisonous thing tastes like, they will find out the truth. Similarly, if you are excessively curious of a patron bringing gifts, those gifts may stop coming. But if you are excessively curious of a criminal, that criminal may harm you. If you are excessively curious into the affairs of a neighbor or associate, you may lose a friend or gain an enemy. If you are excessively curious about government secrets, you can be fined large amounts of money and spend a significant part of your time in a small box.

These are not new concepts or an unfortunate modern sensibility either. There are various fables in which the curiosity of children (or child-like substitutes) is the bringer of disaster or misfortune. This even extends to adults, where the experimentations of adults who are curious and ambitious brings forth great and terrible things.

Curiosity is not a virtue in isolation. It does entail risk. Learning that is a lesson befitting a young child. Learning what do with that knowledge, regardless of whether it is to embrace risk and move forward or to temper the curiosities of others, are the lessons befitting a young adult.

For what it's worth I put that one in because I have heard others talking about it. Personally I cannot remember ever believing that Santa was real, but neither can I remember ever being edgy about it. I can't remember anyone else ever believing that Santa was real either. My recollection of being that age is that of course we all knew it was a game of pretend, and of course we all played along with it for fun.

I may have been very atypical, I don't know. I have never thought about what to tell children about it myself. We'd probably just play the game, but I don't think I'd go to any real effort to hide the truth if a kid was curious.

For what it's worth I put that one in because I have heard others talking about it. Personally I cannot remember ever believing that Santa was real, but neither can I remember ever being edgy about it.

When I was a very young kid I was disappointed that I wasn't allowed to ambush him and obtain evidence, like he was a cryptid. I was at the "sure I'll assume good faith, but" stage of developing skepticism. Good times.

I definitely believed Santa was real. I can't speak for the internal thoughts of anyone around me, but they didn't seem to be just going along, they seemed to believe it as well.

That's my recollection as well, that everyone was playing along including myself. It never felt like my parents were betraying my trust, but more like this was one thing that was an exception and it was okay to playfully lie about. And I can see how that can be a prosocial thing to teach kids. Of course, there might also be parents that go too far, insist too much on the reality of it all without enough winking, and actually cross the line into betraying their children' trust.

Ah, yes, the parents that give coal for questioning Santa.

I wonder, looking at some of the comments up-thread, if it's somthing peculiar to Americans? Do the rest of us treat it like fun make-believe to share with the kids, and for some reason it's just Americans in particular who take it extremely literally and obsess about genuinely convincing children with the most convincing illusion possible?

Or is it, for lack of a better way of putting it, about certain personality types, perhaps very detail-oriented or autistic ones? Maybe if you can't read social cues very well, are very literal-minded, and very trusting by nature, you take what's supposed to be make-believe, genuinely believe it, and then feel surprised and betrayed when you realise your mistake? It's possible that people like that are just overrepresented here and on rationalist-adjacent blogs.

Americans genuinely expect their preschoolers to actually believe, yes. Keeping up the illusion with older kids is going out of style but it still happens.

Telling kids about Santa is actively good. On the most basic level, it is super fun and memorable. It gives them a shared experience with other kids, and a useful way to offload some of the authority strain of parenting (Yes, sweetie, I am here and can be tantrumed against, but Santa is a cold and merciless god who cares not for your tears, but judges you for them.)

And on the deeper level, it teaches kids that some things they are taught about the world are not true.

And on the deeper level, it teaches them that some of those lies are useful.

Now, telling my daughter that if she went into the basement then the Krampus would kidnap her in a sack and take her to Spain... that one might have done a touch of damage.

Ha! I told my kids that if they were good, Santa would give them a present. If they were bad, a lump of coal. And if they were really bad, Krampus would pick them up, put them in his sack, and carry them of.

They laughed and responded: you’re joking right?

I played around for a few minutes like it was real but ultimately told them that Krampus isn’t real. They had a fun time with it. And it showed they understood play and could figure out some things were absurd. Notably however they didn’t seem to question Santa haha

Got to admit, of all the examples, that is not one I expected to occasion any controversy.

I was also somewhat tempted by "circumcision is child abuse" or "circumcision is surgical mutilation", though I think that's just the noncentral fallacy, rather than concepts being opportunistically expanded and diluted. It's also a proxy with a larger and more comprehensive argument behind it - that in general we seem to have a rule against unnecessary, permanent surgical procedures being done on children without their consent, or when they are unable to consent, and circumcision does not qualify as an exception to that rule.

I mean, it clearly just means 'nobody with official sanction is allowed to countersignal LGBT'. That is what it means in practice.

Non-central fallacy is a related concept I remember coming up on SSC.

Motte-and-bailey is also a related concept.

I think that's a bit different - that's presenting a non-central member of a class as if it's the centre. That's something like what I'm talking about, but I have a process in mind.

Moral dilution, maybe?

In the UK there has been a push to pass law to ban conversion therapy but I think there was some trouble because people were worried that if someone talked to someone about gender dysphoria then that could be considered conversion therapy. Unless the law explicitly bans only conversation therapy in 'bad' directions then there is always a risk that a person doing conversion therapy in a 'good' direction will become a victim of the law. Baroness Burt the sponsor of the bill had this to say:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2024-0004/LLN-2024-0004.pdf

Of course, it’s important to differentiate between psychological practice or religious advice and conversion therapy. A therapist, for example, who is exploring gender dysphoria with a young person in good faith—with no predetermined goal to change how that young person ought to be—shouldn’t be penalised. That’s why my bill would require the police to demonstrate both action and motivation when attempting to prosecute in relation to this offence.

"Is talk therapy medicine?" seems like a very easy question to answer.

Is it licensed and regulated by a state or federal level medical board? If yes then it's medicine, if not then it's just speech.

That is question begging of the real sort. A state medical board could say it has authority to regulate radio programs, and under your definition, that would make radio broadcasts medical treatments.

As Ulyssessword pointed out, licensing boards often have their powers constrained and limited by the state.

There is a bargain happening here. Licensing boards get to borrow some of the power of the state to create and have the state enforce semi-monopolistic characteristics in their industry. But in taking that bargain they are in turn subject to the whims of the state that has granted them power.

When you are acting as an individual you have rights. When you are acting as an agent of the state you have constraints.

I'd be fine if the state licensing board for these therapies said "screw this, we are disbanding". That is fully an option for them. But they'd lose a lot of the benefits that they get being under the aegis of the state. Especially tie ins with insurance, both their own malpractice insurance, and medical insurance that pays for these therapies.

The board could say whatever it wanted, but it can only regulate the things that the State delegates to them. For example this Act (pdf) does not give them any power to regulate radio broadcasts. Heck, they can't even set their own fees: It's fixed at $100 in section 36, and would require legislation to change.

And if the state delegates the power to a medical board because they think the 1st Amendment is icky then???

I wouldn't call it a pure medical board anymore, regardless of what its name is. If you know of any medical and telecommunication boards, let me know, and I'll say everything they do is either medicine or telecommunications. Otherwise I'll chalk it up as an absurd hypothetical.

Its not absurd. This profession is people talking in a room. The state, under the guise of medicine, is regulating the content of those words.

If people can make radio transmissions without a license from the state medical board and they would face no repercussions for doing that, the state medical board is not regulating radio transmissions.

Okay, but what if the state wants to regulate radio transmissions and gives the board the ability to impose sanctions on rogue radio broadcasters? Is the radio now a medical treatment?

Radio is now a "medical treatment" in the sense that unlicensed people are no longer allowed to do it without a license from the board, yes. It's not a medical treatment under the lay interpretation of those words. Terms within a legal context sometimes mean something different than terms outside a legal context. It's quite obnoxious as a layperson trying to understand laws.

You have to call back to the original post. One of the questions that the Supreme Court is wrestling with in the case is "what is medicine". /u/cjet79 proposed the definition of:

Is it licensed and regulated by a state or federal level medical board? If yes then it's medicine, if not then it's just speech.

What this implies, is that a state could give itself the legal power to suppress any form of speech by merely making whatever form of speech is in question require a medical license from the state medical board.

My understanding is that this is basically accurate and that by redefining certain types of speech as "professional conduct" states can indeed regulate those types of speech. But that the courts will slap them down if they try to push it too far.

That said, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and the fact that you see that disclaimer everywhere is a case in point.

Well the question is whether the court will indeed slap them down right now.

My point is that if you adopt the medical board framing, you basically give away the cow to anyone who wants it.

More comments

I was going to comment the same thing.

There's a bit of a blurry line if a licensed therapist also offers unregulated life coaching services (as should be their right, but I don't know if professional licensing boards share my opinion), but at minimum they should have a different line item on their bills if they're flipflopping between professional and unconstrained services.

That categorization doesn't just affect the new law. It also affects insurance eligibility, protections on patient confidentiality, answers on various government forms, etc. ("Have you ever been treated by a medical practitioner for a mental health problem?" "No, but I did have a crisis of faith and talked to a priest over the course of several months. It's completely different.")

OP is filtered.

Good now.

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