site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26744 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 15, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I stumbled across a twitter thread on the idea that SIDS is a conspiracy and actually just a way of covering up infanticide. I can't say whether I believe it not, but the story was at least internally consistent.

I think we'll see some level of SRDS - Sudden Retiree Death Syndrome. Essentially "suicide by willful negligence" on the part of some boomers. "Forgetting" to take necessary meds, going for a nice little midnight walk by a bridge, getting interested in at-home amateur electrical work all of a sudden.

I don't think this will be anywhere near the majority. I expect it to be a small enough percentage that it is largely overlooked. Still, when the boomers are well into their 80s, they'll come fact to face with the fact that 1) Raisin ranch existence isn't actually fun or meaningful and 2) Their own children and grandchildren are, yet, still footing the bill for it.

I stumbled across a twitter thread on the idea that SIDS is a conspiracy and actually just a way of covering up infanticide. I can't say whether I believe it not, but the story was at least internally consistent.

This study suggests that about 10% or less of SIDS cases are infanticide.

I stumbled across a twitter thread on the idea that SIDS is a conspiracy and actually just a way of covering up infanticide.

Conspiracy?

My impression could be off, but I was under the impression that it has actually been the mainstream scientific consensus for years now that SIDS is, for the most part, a made up thing. A made up thing that's been allowed to persist as an open secret since doctors don't want to be mean or accusatory in blaming parents (in particular, mothers) for their infants' mostly accidental deaths, especially when those with SIDS-experiencing-infants tend to be black and Amerindian (BIPOC unity before the phrase "BIPOC" was even coined).

According to the new parents' class my wife and I took long ago: most SIDS is probably accidental suffocation. Like a parent falls asleep holding their baby and rolls slightly pressing against their baby's face. Something like that.

Based on how boomers approached their youth, middle age, and early old age, I can only assume that they will have a massive Golden Throne constructed in a Florida retirement community at taxpayer expense. One thousand Zoomer and Millenial psykers will be sacrificed every day so that their psychic energy can maintain the Golden Throne and allow boomers to live for the next 40,000 years.

GenX erasure yet again (sigh).

They're hoping no one is noticing that they're operating the psyker cattle cars.

Too young to be emperor, too old to be fodder - probably the sweet spot 😁

Anyone older then a Millennial is a "boomer". That includes Gen-X, Silents, WWII, Lost Generation, and even the unnamed generations prior. Years from now the Zeds, Alphas and Betas will be calling the Millennials "boomers", much to their irritation.

You are correct!

Yeah, actually, this does make more sense. I think you're right.

I am several decades (hopefully) away from making such a decision, but that is my plan. I saw the burden my dad's decline put on my mother, and the burden my wife's parents put on her and have no desire to do that to my loved ones. I just hope I have the courage when/if the time comes.

Although I don't know that I care whether it looks like an accident or not. I don't expect there to be any life insurance in play by that point (again, hopefully) and bullets are much quicker and more sure.

Read into the policy before you do anything stupid but my understanding is that, after some lock out period, suicide doesn't actually invalidate life insurance policies.

I stumbled across a twitter thread on the idea that SIDS is a conspiracy and actually just a way of covering up infanticide. I can't say whether I believe it not, but the story was at least internally consistent.

I have always felt this. I wouldn't say infanticide but more like negligence and accident. I think doctors understand that new parents can be tired and stressed and shit happens. You are breastfeeding your baby in bed, you fall asleep, roll over, blankets smother baby. I think a doctor looking at that would say "Why ruin this parent's life with guilt when it was really an understandable mistake?" And so they give them a medical-sounding description that connotes a random medical event, like the baby just mysteriously had a stroke or something (even though the definition of SIDS makes no such claim, it is totally consistent with accidental smothering), mostly to allow them to just move on with their lives and treat it as an act of god.

Testable predictions if my theory is true: SIDS rates will be higher among lower IQ parents and higher among blacks, probably also higher among single mothers.

This is correct, it's really a very open not-so-secret secret. A buddy of mine from college works as a volunteer fireman/emt, he told me that they get calls pretty frequently about dead babies, most commonly parents who fell asleep with the kid on their stomach, in bed with them, etc and got smothered. Standard Operating Procedure is generally to just file it all as SIDS to avoid any legal ramifications, unless the negligence was exceedingly egregious (eg they were stoned and accidentally left their infant in the tub to drown). As he said, being sentenced to live with the fact that you killed your kid is enough.

This was more or less stated in a new parents' class I took long ago. Presented as advice to put your baby to bed properly even if you are really tired. Don't fall asleep in a chair holding them.

And so they give them a medical-sounding description that connotes a random medical event

The problem with this, of course, is that parents that are diligent/intelligent but aren't in on the joke will treat SIDS like it actually could happen to them. So they end up taking a bunch of steps they don't need to, and are improperly convinced their babies are far more fragile than they actually are; this attitude then extends into childhood and they just get smothered a different way.

This is actually an argument I had a couple of times in groups of new parents, almost every single time with American expatriate families. They seem absolutely terrified of SIDS in a way that none of the other Europeans or 3rd worlders I know are. And it sucks because some of the "precautions" make it very difficult to take care of a small baby sometimes.

Yeah though on a societal level is it better if people are overcautious about their infants or undercautious? I agree there's likely a ton of anxiety created through current 'SIDS as act of god' messaging, plus the breadth of human history contains a lot more infanticide than people are probably aware of, but on the other hand I think it could be a net good if people are checking their infant constantly rather than taking it too relaxed.

Then again I'm a parent and I've got a 2nd baby due in a couple months and I feel like I'm going to be a lot more laissez faire with #2 in the infant stage than I was with #1. Just having already gone through it and not everything being a crazy novelty.

Yeah though on a societal level is it better if people are overcautious about their infants or undercautious?

What are you optimizing for? If you're optimizing for percentage of infants who survive infancy, more caution looks good. If you're optimizing for total number of infants who survive infancy, it might look a lot less good.

On a societal level, undercautious.

Otherwise, you start to get problems with people who aren't parents starting to think they're entitled to enforce caution by proxy because "don't you know all babies are at risk of randomly exploding?", and would-be parents thinking the same and either spend more resources solving an imaginary problem or judge having to deal with an exploded baby too risky and then fail to become parents. This is more important when the first baby a prospective parent encounters is their own, since there's no way to reliably calibrate risk any other way.

It's not the only thing that causes that socially destructive behavior (I'd argue "don't you know your kid could just get randomly snatched?" is the biggest one- that isn't really random either, of course), but it is a contributor.

Testable predictions if my theory is true: SIDS rates will be higher among lower IQ parents and higher among blacks, probably also higher among single mothers.

..... (sadly) ding, ding, ding.

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