site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   10917 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 1, 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.

To be fair, I had a boomer coworker who claimed to be a vegetarian despite eating fish ("I consider fish to be vegetables").

Is it @thejdizzler who's vegan except for oysters?

so there's presumably a variety of reasons that meat eaters call themselves vegetarians besides virtue signalling.

Regardless of their motivations, calling yourself vegetarian when you eat meat is simply a misuse of the word, surely?

Be reasonable, @thejdizzler is not a boomer.

Regardless of their motivations, calling yourself vegetarian when you eat meat is simply a misuse of the word, surely?

Yes. My point is that the misuse of the labels is not always exclusively due to TLP's narcissism theory.

My point is that the misuse of the labels is not always exclusively due to TLP's narcissism theory.

Agreed, and I didn't mean to imply that it was. I was using it as an example of a once-strict identity category for which the boundaries seem to have become more porous over time.

I've also said here that I describe myself as a vegetarian, despite eating bivalves (and roadkill, and caviar, and etc...)

It's just much less work to do that than explain to a restaurant the exact things I do eat. There is a word--ostrovegan--that kind of describes it, but most people would be confused by it, as it's obscure enough to be overly precious.

That's just communicating dietary requirements, though, in the not especially common scenario when I need to. I wouldn't say I identify as any particular terms associated with dietary restrictions.

despite eating bivalves (and roadkill, and caviar, and etc...)

Really burying the lede there.

Roadkill doesn't necessarily mean it's been sitting out in the sun for days. In fact most larger animals struck by a car are left crippled and then need to be shot- the police will donate it to the zoo for lion food, but if legal it doesn't really make much difference if you/your redneck neighbor shoots it and takes it to the freezer.

Roadkill doesn't necessarily mean it's been sitting out in the sun for days.

Yes, I'm aware. I've eaten harvested roadkill. It's more the "vegetarian with exception for roadkill" that's an eyebrow-raiser.

I had a great-uncle who would apparently listen to police scanners at night so he could be the first to roadkill strikes for the free meat.

I salvaged a deer and pretty much every vegetarian I know said they would eat it. Most didn't know you could legally (it depends on the state) salvage roadkill and thought it was pretty cool. In my case I also dispatched it, so time from death to fridge was faster than most harvested deer.

Minor culture war angle: A Muslim guy had "called dibs" on the deer and didn't want me to kill it because then it wouldn't be halal. Said he had his brother on the phone and he was going to come butcher it. The deer was suffering greatly and I said if his brother wasn't almost here I was going to kill it. He wouldn't tell me how far away his brother was. Heard him derogatorily call me a cowboy between whatever he was speaking. I'm not nearly that cool.

Bewarned- in most of the bigger states this is deer poaching. If you hit a deer with your car, you're supposed to call a police officer to come dispatch it humanely.

In practice, you may not get caught, and the main penalty(loss of hunting license) is irrelevant to non-hunters. But it is de jure illegal.

It does greatly depend on state, but I live in a cool state. I used to work for F&G it's de facto here, you have 24 hours to get the salvage tag. Cops showed up after I'd dispatched it, we had a pleasant chat before they took off.

It's worth checking your state laws for sure, cause I know in Wisconsin at least it's perfectly legal. In fact, you're even entitled to take the carcass if you didn't hit it with your car - the driver who hit it has dibs, but after that whoever comes across it can take it if they want.

In fact, you're even entitled to take the carcass if you didn't hit it with your car - the driver who hit it has dibs, but after that whoever comes across it can take it if they want.

That's how my state works as well. And the cop who shows up when you report striking the deer issues the salvage tag.

It strongly depends on the state. If you would actually like to do this, your state fish and game or wildlife department likely has it in an FAQ on their website. Texas hard bans private harvest of animals hit by a car- you're supposed to make a police report for it to be disposed of, either fed to the lions at the zoo or thrown in the landfill depending on how quickly they get to it.

I just looked up Pennsylvania's laws regarding large roadkill and things are more complicated than most people realize. If the deer appears to be dead you're supposed to call PennDOT (if on a state road) or the Game Commission (if on a local road) to remove the animal. If it's alive and hasn't moved from the road or poses a safety risk you're supposed to call the local police, who may in turn have the game commission dispatch it. If it's dead you can take it, but you have to report it to the Game Commission within 24 to get a permit number for it. I'm guessing that this is so people who get reported for having a deer without tags won't get busted for poaching.

In Texas there's a hard ban on harvesting roadkill, for poaching-prevention reasons. But in Oklahoma you can call a game warden who can issue a special tag. It varies a lot.

This is a great story. I'd love to come across a dead deer like that.

Makes for a solid venison chili, though more of something from my youth than present (illegal to collect in CA).

I do eat oysters and other bivalves m, but I no longer label myself vegan.

Why not?

1). I now eat bottom-feeding fish (sardines, anchovies, tilapia). This is too far to call myself vegan anymore. 2). I no longer believe that veganism is nutritionally beneficial due to big mental health changes from eating fish. I still think largely plant-based is the way to go however. 3). I no longer believe in the purity culture associated with veganism. The way forward for animal rights is by a large number of people making small changes to their diets, not through a couple million extremists trying to argue people into diets they will not comply with.

Why did you decide to start eating those fish?

A couple reasons. A blogger I used to follow (rintrah) who used to be vegan found out he was extremely deficient in Omega-3s and this had been negatively impacting his mood and behavior. I noticed similar symptoms in myself. Also the canned fish were right next to the oysters in the supermarket and I found myself craving sardines every time I bought oysters.

FWIW, you can get omega 3s from algae oil as well (which is what I do). I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that you ended up eating fish after the interminable debates about animal rights in the pages of this very forum.

I still believe in animal rights, I just no longer think veganism is the way to obtain them. I don't eat eggs or dairy still and never plan to (unless I can own a chicken or five), or eat terrestrial meat or predator fish. Sardines and anchovies have such a limited capacity to suffer, and are likely eaten by predators in the wild anyway, so what does me refusing to eat a couple cans a week actually do for those fish (nothing). Of course if I was eating only fish, or fish that ate other fish (Tuna, Salmon, etc.) I think my calculation would be different, and with terrestrial animals factory farming is clearly evil, and I personally can't stomach hunting, so those are still off the table. That said the extremist vegan position was not sustainable for me. What can I say, you guys were right about stuff.

Note that whole most anchovies and sardines are wild caught, tilapia is mostly farmed and has the usual factory farming problems (and I'd expect, although I haven't checked, that the supply of wild tilapia is inelastic and increased demand for tilapia results in more farmed tilapia).

What can I say, you guys were right about stuff.

Don't look at me, I'm a vegetarian.

More comments

Ah, fair enough.

I also wouldn't say it's egregious if someone who eats oysters calls themselves mostly vegan or even vegan for simplicity.

As mollusks are invertebrates it's not even clear they have the ability to perceive experience. So, at least some, of the ethical considerations for veganism are moot. I know, I know, they still have nerves. It's not clear if there is still proper concept of pain or suffering from those structures or if the nerves just allow for reflexive action like a silver maple turning over a damaged leaf. They can also be farmed relatively sustainably, so some of the environmental considerations are also moot. It's probably a lot easier to explain to a normi "I'm mostly vegan" than to say I'm a vegan, but I cleave the phylogenetic tree at Nephrozoa not Animalia.

Pescetarians calling themselves vegetarians is relatively more potentially confusing, though also understandable if they come from a tradition of giving up only carne (in the flesh from that which walks the earth sense) for lent or on Fridays, etc.

Cephalopods are mollusks, too. I'm not sure about the nervous systems of gastropods, either. It's mostly bivalves that are effectively meat-plants. outside of mollusks, some echinoderms had, then lost brains at some point, but display far more complex behavior than bivalves, so IDK. Sea Anenemies (HTF do you pell that I've tried like 6 ways and can't get any spellcheck suggestions) seem fairly plant-like, but does anyone actually eat them? Does anyone eat echinoderms besides seacucumbers?

Sea Anenemies (HTF do you pell that I've tried like 6 ways and can't get any spellcheck suggestions) seem fairly plant-like, but does anyone actually eat them?

Wikipedia article

In southwestern Spain and Sardinia, the snakelocks anemone is consumed as a delicacy. Anemones are also a source of food for fisherman communities on the east coast of Sabah, Borneo, as well as in the Thousand Islands of Southeast Asia and in Taizhou, Zhejiang.

Technically speaking the current Catholic definition of meat requires the animal to be both land dwelling and warm blooded. Older Cajuns will think reptile meat is vegetarian, including things like rattlesnake. It makes sense from a culinary definition, if not nutritional.

The church also declared beavers to be cold-blooded water dwellers and therefore perfectly suitable to eat during Friday fasts. The rules get weird around the edges.

Are beavers actually cold-blooded?

No. The pope is not infallible on scientific matters.

This rather famously resulted in some awkward loopholes around the capybara. Thankfully, 1800s Catholics had not yet discovered the swamp rabbit.

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