site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23627 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's fiction, and there's real life. In a fictional book, a character can be any age, any size, and still behave in any way. In real life, those features correlate strongly. It's easy to write an adult, mention she's 5 years old, and about 4 feet tall, and then have her wax eloquently about her passion for her lover on a stand. In real life, 5 year olds can barely string a coherent adult sentence together, and not about abstract ideas.

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.

Link? How old were the victims? How does one enjoy something and then have it insidiously fuck them up later if there's no physical damage? Is it heartbreak? Addiction? Those are the only two experiences like that I can imagine. I'm not sure what they would be addicted to. Sex? I don't think it works like that, people just have a sex drive. As for heartbreak, what if it's just a lover's quarrel gone wrong? How come it's not illegal to break my heart?

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.

What you call vaguely defined is in fact scientifically measured. 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. 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.

(There are children who go through very precocious puberty. Should they be on the menu?)

I already answered that with the "common law age of consent" idea. If it wasn't clear, puberty timing doesn't appear to correlate much with intelligence, so no, I would not buy precocious puberty as a defense if the girl clearly can't mentally understand consent because, for instance, she is 9.

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.

So rape that leaves no injury isn't rape?

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.

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

You thought I liked little kids but really I'm just anti-feminist.

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