site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   27137 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.

What do you mean by exploitation exactly? How is this bad for society, even if it makes minors happy?

There's a very prolific and once-ubiquitous science fiction author named Piers Anthony, most famous for his Xanth series. (Bear with me here.) He's not quite as popular as he once was, so you don't hear about him much anymore, but he was all over the place in the 80s and 90s.

Besides being prolific and writing a ton of series, the thing almost anyone who's ever read Piers Anthony will tell you is that every one his books oozes horny, and there are very few that don't involve some underage sex, at least hinted at if not explicit. Piers Anthony is a classic Dirty Old Man. And hey, everyone has their thing.

Anyway, one of his most infamous novels is Firefly, which is a horror novel about some kind of ooze-monster that makes people super horny. I read it so long ago I don't really remember the plot much, but I do remember a rather infamous courtroom scene:

The Judge refocused his eyes and mopped his brow with a handkerchief. "Is—is the Defense ready to proceed?"

"We are, Your Honor. We believe that this poignant tape establishes that though the Defendant may be technically guilty of the charge against him, he is not morally guilty. He did not seek the girl, he did not force his attention on her. He demurred at every stage, by her own testimony. It was entirely voluntary on her part. In fact, they were lovers, in the truest sense, age no barrier. The law may say he is guilty, but the law is sometimes an ass."

Several members of the Jury nodded their agreement.

Then he turned to the Jury. "If there is guilt here, then surely it is that of the father, who set her up by incestuously toying with her. And of her brother, who practiced sodomy on her with a candle. Remember, it was to escape that abuse that she first fled and found the Defendant. The Defendant never hurt her. He did only what she asked. He gave her what no other man did. He loved her. We may take issue with the manner of the expression of that love, but we cannot deny its reality. She came to him of her own accord, again and again, because what he offered her was so much better than what she received at home. Her family should be on trial!"

The child here is, IIRC, five. Five years old. Piers Anthony writes a sympathetic courtroom scene in which jurors are moved to tears by the unfairness of prosecuting a man who fucked a five-year-old because they truly loved each other.

Lest I be accused of committing the classic fallacy of assuming fiction represents the author's actual views, Piers Anthony is also notable for stuffing every one of his books with chapter-long Author's Notes in which he is not shy about his views. Let's just say while he never comes out directly and says "Yes, fucking consenting five-year-olds should be legal," it's, uh, not exactly hiding between the lines.

My point: I don't buy it from a rather accomplished and very charming author who did his best to make it plausible in the pages of a novel. I certainly don't buy it from you. The reason "statutory rape" exists is that the law recognizes that children can be persuaded to do things, and even enjoy things, that are not good for them. A child will enjoy eating ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A child will enjoy playing all day and not going to school. A child will enjoy dressing up in skimpy clothes and makeup and prancing around in front of adoring grown men who tell her how pretty she is. And a child, no doubt, can be persuaded that she enjoys sex with a grown man.

This is why we have age of consent laws. To protect children from, well, people who think "She likes it" means it's okay.

To address your other point, that you seem to deny the testimony of victims of child sexual abuse who later claim they were too young to consent and that even if they enjoyed it at the time, it fucked them up later in life, I suggest you watch some parole hearings, of which there are many on YouTube. Chomos often use the "She seduced me/it was consensual" argument. I think they usually really believe this. I know some guys believe every rape accusation is just a woman having regrets afterwards, but I find it hard to believe that the adult victims of these men (and note that sometimes the victims are boys, too, if that weighs more heavily with you) are just making it up when they say that what they "consented" to when they were children is not something they should have been allowed to consent to.

Now you may protest "I'm only talking about 15-year-olds, not 5-year-olds!" And, fair enough. Except that once we accept your arguments for why young men should not be denied the pleasures of a 15-year-old, you really don't have much except vaguely-defined "physical and mental development" to argue against going much younger. (There are children who go through very precocious puberty. Should they be on the menu?)

You can never make this argument for a mentally normal 15 year old.

Can't you? A 5-year-old can learn what sex is, and a very sheltered 15-year-old might be as naive as that fictional child.

As a rule, I can't condone the idea of labeling someone a felon because a woman says she's offended by him.

Ah.

What you prefer to my indices are the stated feelings of older women. As a rule, I can't condone the idea of labeling someone a felon because a woman says she's offended by him. She's got to show some physical damage or demonstrate some kind of financial or physical grievance using hard evidence.

So rape that leaves no injury isn't rape?

Maybe the difference between me and age of consent should be 18 folks is that I won't convict a man or legislate based solely on woman's scorn.

Ah.

I see this is not just about the age of consent.

It's rape, but I have to have evidence it happened other than victim testimony. If the accused denies the victim's testimony, and there's no other evidence of rape, then they cancel out and I wouldn't convict.

That's the law, in the US.

You thought I liked little kids

I did not think or say that.

but really I'm just anti-feminist.

Obviously, but a very particular type of anti-feminist.

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