site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27033 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026

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.

Well, where are you going to live? Renting is infeasible (by design). Are you going to buy a different house that also has a fake and gay high price?

For many boomers, the answer to that question is "an assisted living facility/a retirement home". This facility then will charge both rent and service fees that are so absurdly fake and gay high, that it will be able to transfer the entire value of the sold house into the hands of private equity firms and the medical industry in just a few years. Just in time before anybody can inherit anything.

It's almost as if they designed the entire system in a way that explicitly allows private equity to drain trillions of dollars from the middle class.

It's almost as if they designed the entire system in a way that explicitly allows private equity to drain trillions of dollars from the middle class.

Almost -- probably good to keep in mind that for children that would rather inherit, the option does exist to not do this. You can certainly move your elderly parents in with you and bear that burden, people do -- it is very difficult, but that just means that the money siphoned off is in a sense payment for services rendered by the MedIC to the heirs.

I mean it does but also the progress of modern medicine and availability of ways to glean out extra lifeyears means that it's harder for a family to provide adequate senescence care.

I do have personal experience in this area -- granted that was a while ago, but if it's become harder that's an argument that it's worth more money than it was, yeah?

I think you're both bringing up good points, and I'd say that the conversation points towards the ultimate speciousness of elderly care being explicitly designed to be a wealth transfer, POASIWID notwithstanding. I also have painful personal experience in this area and quite current as well, and as a result I have another half-formed effortpost on this subject which this margin is too small to contain, but factor in the pieces that have been brought up, throw in how much more difficult it is to have someone home round-the-clock to watch grandma/grandpa in this age of both spouses working being the norm, as well as how expensive round-the-clock care typically is in general, and add in a side of all of the family dysfunction typically coming out to play and that'll do for the general outline of said post, with a conclusion of eldercare being classically and necessarily a wicked problem, especially given that healthcare in the US is, in and of itself, another wicked problem.

Also family sizes being smaller makes it trickier. I've got a 100+ year old great grandma in law who had 12 kids, most of whom stayed fairly local and produced their own numerous progeny.

It's considerably more practical to care for her being split between like 5 different households versus if it were a succession of nuclear families

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