site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   27084 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.

If a man is convicted of statutory rape, then he had consensual sex with a teenage girl.

Okay, now tell me why you can't (or wouldn't) make all these same arguments about a 10-year-old who has hit puberty?

I don't find this argument convincing. Your entire premise is that 15 is arbitrary and most 15-year-olds (according to you) are physically and mentally mature enough while most 10-year-olds are not. This might be true. But it's clearly a sliding scale: some (very tiny) number of 10-year-olds probably are physically and mentally mature enough, while there are a not-insignificant number of 15-year-olds who definitely are not.

Every age-of-consent argument boils down to this: yes, the number we choose is somewhat arbitrary. You're saying 18 is too old but 14 is too young. You may or may not be correct, but there will always be someone saying "Aktually most 14-year-olds nowadays..."

While I wouldn't lose sleep over lowering the AOC to 15, nor am I losing sleep over it being 18. And I would pretty seriously side-eye a grown man with a 15-year-old girlfriend, however full of hip and round of breast she might be.

(Also, I think you probably are our previous ebophile poster.)

Elsewhere in the thread I said I supported a "common law age of consent," where the aptitude for consent is judged by a jury in a trial that charges rape or sexual assault, where the prosecutor brings evidence that the victim lacks mental capacity.

I'm really struggling to envision how this would work in practice. A 20-year-old man has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl, but it's okay because "she seemed really mature for her age"?

How would this synergise (or not) with other rights only afforded to people who have reached the age of majority? 15-year-olds can vote, drink alcohol, smoke, buy guns etc. provided they can demonstrate that they're unusually mature for their age? Can you imagine the administrative overhead involved in having a public body vet the emotional maturity of every 15-, 16- and 17-year-old in the land on a case-by-case basis?

But somehow I suspect you aren't half as emotionally invested in extending the franchise to "emotionally mature" 15-year-olds as you are in decriminalising grown men having sex with minors.

I think there should be the ability for smart 15-year-olds to become emancipated in cases where their parents lack ability, are abusive, or are just too different from their own tastes.

Libertarian discussion of this idea

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature—in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

So, 5 years old who leaves home to move in with nice uncle who promises him as much chocolate as he wants to eat, is adult citizen with full rights, while 50 years old who is living with mom is still legally a baby?

Very cool. Misesistan is going to be interesting place. Perhaps not to live in, but certainly to watch from the other side of the world.

More comments

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