site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   14511 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ins't the US age of consent 16? Now you can well argue that these 16 year olds were coerced but then having sex with them would be rape regardless of whether they were 16 or 21 so the age factor would drop out of the equation completely and it just becomes "Trump used coerced prostitutes" which is a much weaker story and would have dropped out of the news years ago (see the Stormy Daniels saga, although she wasn't coerced). The fact that it's continuing means at the very least some of the people were under 16 when the relevant events happened.

Trump used coerced prostitutes

Everyone knows that's false, though, for reasons Sloot covered above. And most claimed "coercion" is just progressive/selfish-woman-speak for "he said he wouldn't keep supplying/buying me X if I didn't put out/consent" anyway, so using that standard I'm forced to conclude it's very unlikely the Rotherham girls were coerced either.

The fact that it's continuing means at the very least some of the people were under 16

In a landscape where the media tends to blow its load all at once I sincerely doubt this is the case.

I'm forced to conclude it's very unlikely the Rotherham girls were coerced either.

The Rotherham girls were a lot younger than the women/girls on Epstein's island. The official report states that the majority were between the ages of 10 and 16.

Depends on the state, but crossing state lines to have sex with a woman under 18 is probably illegal somehow, even if the states involved have a lower age.

I wonder what odd juxtapositions exist in places like Nevada where prostitution is legal and the age of consent is 16. Like if you’re a teacher at a public high school and some kid there is employed at the Mustang Ranch, is it legal to go and fuck your students? That always seemed disgusting as fuck to me.

Whenever you see an age of consent below 18 it almost always is actually accompanied by a number of caveats. Prostitution, pornography, age difference and the adult being an authority figure being very common variables to be taken into consideration.

IDK about that, but Texas has an age of consent of 17 unless you have some legitimate reason for knowing the minor in question, in which case it's 18, and flat out bans school district employees from having sex with the students. These seem like obvious rule patches.

This page indicates that the minimum age for prostitution in Nevada is 18 or 21, depending on the county.

The fact that it's continuing means at the very least some of the people were under 16 when the relevant events happened.

I don't think that follows. I think the fact that it's continuing means that, at the very least, the people who are continuing this believe that they can create a public impression that some of the people were under 16 when the relevant events happened. Hard to say if the people who are continuing this also believe that some of the people were under 16 when the relevant events happened, but their belief regarding this doesn't matter, it's the belief of the voting populace that matters.

Ins't the US age of consent 16?

Like everything else in America, it varies by state. However, since Hollywood is in California, 18 has been memed into the canonical age of consent throughout the country (and, indeed, around the world).

Critically, 18 is the age at which normie parents - and particularly normie red tribe parents - stop thinking "What if this was my daughter?". Of course the reality is that Mirpuri rape gangs, Jeffrey Epstein, your local street corner pimp etc. all preferentially go after kids without high-functioning, involved parents, so it was vanishingly unlikely to be your daughter. But I don't think normies get this.

If it was your teenage daughter, the age of consent in your jurisdiction wouldn't be relevant to your desire to wreak terrible revenge against the sleazebag.

Some US states have their age of consent at 18. But even if it wasn't, it's not like the moral outrage would stop over that. I notice that people who loudly decry sex with late-teen girls generally aren't considering local ages of consent as a valid argument in favor. It would simply shift to "they weren't adults".

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