site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   22670 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

WRT Hemani, it really seems like some court at some point needs to question whether marijuana really fits the definition of a Schedule I controlled substance. I'm not a user, or even a fan of it, but "no known medical use" seems pretty flat on its face given that most states have accepted medical uses. But I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath for government policy to have to, uh, actually make sense to a lay person like me, and it doesn't impact me directly anyway.

Maybe if a hypothetical right wing administration tried to put Mifepristone on that list would we actually see some questions about "rational basis" here. But (fortunately, at least for my moderate views on abortion) the broader right seems mostly-okay(?) with the status quo where the FDA has legalized and regulated it nationwide, despite newfound state regulation of other (non-drug-induced) methods.

It really seems like some court at some point needs to question whether marijuana really fits the definition of a Schedule I controlled substance.

Apparently (article, opinion), this happened back in 1994, but the appeals panel found that the DEA's interpretation of the statute was not unreasonable.

Our review of the record convinces us that the Administrator's findings are supported by substantial evidence. The Final Order canvasses the record at length. It recites the testimony of numerous experts that marijuana's medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific studies. The Administrator reasonably accorded more weight to the opinions of these experts than to the anecdotal testimony of laymen and doctors on which petitioners relied. The Administrator noted that

[w]ith one exception, none of [these doctors] could identify under oath the scientific studies they swore they relied on. Only one had enough knowledge to discuss the scientific technicalities involved. Eventually, each one admitted he was basing his opinion on anecdotal evidence, on stories he heard from patients, and on his impressions about the drug.

These findings are consistent with the view that only rigorous scientific proof can satisfy the CSA's "currently accepted medical use" requirement.

But that was 30 years ago, so perhaps more scientific studies are available nowadays.

For decades there have been synthetic THC pills approved for medicinal use such as Marinol. THC is FDA approved. So strange that extracting THC from marijuana is Schedule 1 but synthesizing it in a lab is not.

I think we are slowly starting to establish the evidence base for the current schedule to maybe be appropriate.

For a long time "medical" use was just cover really, and for some of the proposed indications (anxiety, insomnia) it's at this point understood to be an actively bad idea. Chronic pain is a bit more debatable and for increasing appetite it actually works great.

The bigger problem is the growing damage to general human flourishing and the really significant negative impact on patients in the psychiatric population.

Would you be willing to make a deep dive/effort post about pot? I’ve definitely gotten the impression that it’s gotten an undeservedly good rap.

Ughhhh for medical work a deep dive involves citation which sounds like a lot of work. Maybe at some point, but for now some thoughts:

  1. Weed is a drug. Maybe more on the alcohol tier, but it's still a drug. If you talk to people who use many of them sound like addicts. It's not a mistake to notice this, they are. You can have withdrawal (although it's in many ways not as bad as some other withdrawals). People in denial of having a problem... Also, cannabis hyperemesis syndrome is a thing. You'll see patients come in multiple times a month with profuse vomiting and we know the exact cause and they have zero ability or willingness to calm down. Total addiction.

  2. It hampers human flourishing. For many people the primary problem is that it makes them feel okay with their life being ass. To some extent that's a good thing but I know plenty of people who didn't try to fix stuff as a result. That's bad.

  3. Plenty of people (as with alcohol) use a little bit and don't have any problems at all. Moderation is possible. This creates a context of false sense of security.

  4. The association with positive impact on the supposed indications is questionable. Anxiety and insomnia are best treated by addressing root issues. Use a drug is a crutch that prevents recovery. For many it actually worsens these things, and passing out does not mean "sleeping."

  5. Most importantly, like with alcohol a particular subset of the patient absolutely cannot. Psych patients. These people will go by even more unsafe street weed these days if they can't get it at dispensary (usually stepped on with a....variety) so hard to stop it, but it worsens all kinds of shit and can make recovery and tons of these people think its an adequate treatment.

Nearly every patient with a psychiatric diagnosis you see in the hospital - and I'm talking on medical floors too, has a massive weed addiction.

Some of these people also appear to have been created by weed.

Additionally, when I was young I remember people going "pshh they are overstating the risks, but risks exist?" with drugs. Lots of young people today are "this is perfectly healthy."

Lots of young people today are "this is perfectly healthy."

It's a cope. It's a way for us to ignore the severely blackpilling issues. Some non-trivial percentage of young men and women will realistically 1) never own a house, 2) never have a stable long-term relationship, 3) never have a social circle more than 2-3 people they can trust. So, why not get high (or drink) most days?

These personal problems are, of course, connected to the large-scale social problems that will cause despair in even the most radical optimists. I'm an optimist, but the dating situation is pretty severe for young men and women. It's hard for anyone 30+ with a stable relationship (or a stable past relationship) to understand.

I mean, I get why people take the Soma, but also it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Additionally most people don't have that insight into why they are doing it.

I mean, the literal legal ruling would be something like ‘47 states or whatever are breaking the law and it’s up to congress to change it’. Obviously courts don’t want to touch that and bringing a lawsuit wouldn’t actually do anything.

That does seem like the most likely outcome, especially with the current high court, but there have been cases where courts have "pressed X to doubt" on questionable factual assertions by the executive. "Is there lawlessness on the streets of [several cities] sufficient to send in the National Guard?" is one such case that's ongoing (I largely expect SCOTUS to side with the executive there, for better or worse). But I guess half a century of Tradition! in this case is only one of "arbitrary and capricious".

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