site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24830 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Out of context. It means that a boy has to be 9 for an act of intercourse to legally count as one for other purposes. The prohibition on rape is separate and has no minimum age.

Out of context.

Nope, that's a different section of the Talmud. Sanhedrin 54b is what you want:

במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר כל דאיתיה בשוכב איתיה" בנשכב וכל דליתיה בשוכב ליתיה בנשכב The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively, and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively. Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable."

And Maimonides, applying this part of the Torah many centuries later:

"Once a male has penetrated another male, if both are adults, they are stoned…

If one was a minor but at least nine years and a day old, the active or passive adult is stoned while the minor is exempt.

If the minor was exactly nine years old or less, they are both exempt. Still, it is fitting for the court to give lashes of insubordination to the adult for sleeping with a male, even though that male was less than nine." - Laws of Forbidden Relations 1:14

This is what I'm talking about, there are plenty of things in the Talmud that sound awful out of context but are unobjectionable in context (or the person referencing it is incorrectly summarizing what it actually says). But there are also several that are absolutely horrendous regardless of context.

That's out of context in pretty much the same way (except you quoted enough to show the context). It says they're not liable for violating the prohibition against homosexual intercourse. It doesn't say that it removes the liability for violating the prohibition against rape.

Moses Maimonides says the only punishment the rapist should face is lashings for homosexuality. And perhaps more importantly, on the previous paragraphs hes lists no punishment for women that rape 8 year old boys except thet they have lost any eligibility to marry a member of the priesthood. It seems pretty clear that Maimonides interpreted that section the same way modern normies reading it do.

Moses Maimonides says the only punishment the rapist should face is lashings for homosexuality.

C'mon. Where's your source for this? (Notice that the word "only" does not appear above. Also note that "doesn't count as intercourse" doesn't mean "doesn't count as rape".)

no punishment for women that rape

The traditional viewpoint is that women- by definition, the passive partner in any sexual encounter- cannot rape.
Why would you expect any society to bother proscribing a logical impossibility? (Not that it stopped them from "can you be gay with yourself", but...)

You said that "the Torah says it's ok to rape boys under the age of 9". This reads to me like autistic legalist interpretation on precisely how the laws around equal punishment for sexual offenses and minimum age for criminal culpability interact, not an endorsement of pedophilia; it's no more sinister than an Aella poll.

Semi-relatedly, here's a funny bit from Sanhedrin 55a on the halakhaic status of putting your dick in your own ass:

Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet: With regard to one who performs the initial stage of homosexual intercourse on himself, what is the halakha? Is he liable for homosexual intercourse? Rav Sheshet said to him: You disgust me with your question; such an act is not possible.

Rav Ashi said: What is your dilemma? With regard to doing so with an erect penis, you cannot find such a case. You can find it only when one performs this act of intercourse with a flaccid penis. And the halakha is subject to a dispute: According to the one who says that a man who engages in intercourse with a flaccid penis, with one of those with whom relations are forbidden, is exempt, as that is not considered intercourse, here too, when one does so to himself, he is exempt. And according to the one who says that he is liable, he is rendered liable here for transgressing two prohibitions according to Rabbi Yishmael; he is rendered liable for engaging in homosexual intercourse actively, and he is rendered liable for engaging in homosexual intercourse passively.

Lmao! What in the fuck….

I love how this thread has turned into a discussion where we’ve essentially become a group of Jews debating scriptural nuances and statements of other Rabbi’s, vindicating the stereotype that Jews love to argue with each other.

Yeah pedantic internet people have always had that resemblance, at least since the 90s to my recollection but likely beyond that.

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