site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   14957 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So novelty is the primary concern? If something with enough precedent means it's not authoritarian or fascist, then under Buck v. Bell and Korematsu, there are no grounds to complain when El Presidente for Life Vance decides everyone below 75 IQ must be sterilized and all Muslims must be interned and have their property confiscated. Novelty seems like a rather poor rubric.

there are no grounds to complain when El Presidente for Life Vance decides everyone below 75 IQ must be sterilized

Given that Vance is a Catholic convert, this is not a policy he would enforce since we're anti-sterilisation. You're thinking of the right-minded, science-loving, progressive sector of American thought-leaders and opinion-formers since the late 19th and early 20th century:

In 1897, Michigan introduced a compulsory sterilization bill that “called for the castration of certain types of criminals and ‘degenerates.’” However, it lacked votes and was never adopted.

In 1905, state legislators in Pennsylvania passed the Act for the Prevention of Idiocy. This bill called for the compulsory sterilization of people in state institutions who were deemed “idiots” or “imbeciles.” The governor felt this was cruel and vetoed it.

Then, in 1907, Indiana passed a law making it the first to enact eugenic sterilization legislation. This law targeted “confirmed criminals,” “imbeciles,” “idiots,” and “rapists” who were confined to state institutions.

Two years later, California and Washington followed suit. California targeted patients in state hospitals and institutions for the “mentally retarded,” as well as prison inmates, while Washington targeted habitual criminals and men convicted of rape.

As these eugenic ideas spread, foundations such as the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation began funding research. In 1911, the Eugenics Record Office was established in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The ERO began collecting data on families. It concluded that the people it deemed “unfit” came from socially and economically poor families. The answer was sterilization.

...By 1930, 30 states had passed laws that mandated eugenic sterilization for various moral or criminal offenses. Almost all of these states “imposed mandatory sterilization of mentally defective citizens. Nineteen states required sterilization for parents of children likely to experience various disorders. Six states encouraged sterilization for individuals whose children might be ‘socially inadequate.’”

I know, isn't this backward, benighted religious superstition and control on freedom of thought terrible!

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