site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29357 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.

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.

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

You imagine wrong. See for example the recent drama with Gordon Guyatt, the father of Evidence Based Medicine, who's own studies show the lack of evidence. He's still pretty freaked out about these laws being passed.

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!

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