site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28057 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Firstly, declines in fertility are somewhat due to endocrine disruptors from microplastic pollution we've caused.

I think this is disproven by the example of Israel, where there is an ultra-religious population and more secular groups. The ultra-religious are growing in number far faster than the more secular groups. It's difficult to see how this discrepancy could be the result of micro-plastics. Especially when there is a much more obvious explanation: Among the ultra-religious, there is a strong cultural belief that one should marry young and have a large family.

Secondly, there seems to be a deeper link between modernity and fertility that most want to admit. We may see high fertility as you say, but it won't be in the world we currently live in culturally, socially, or technologically.

I am not sure what your point is here. If you are saying that future technological changes may affect current trends, then I would have to agree with you. That's why I included the caveat "barring some game-changing technology or disaster" in my post.

Finally, as many on this forum are loathe to admit, we have actually outrun the carrying capacity of this planet. There won't be another fertility explosion in this culture because the planet literally will not support it for much longer.

I strongly disagree with this. If this claim were remotely true, then one would expect to see mass deaths due to some resource shortage. Which may eventually happen, but it's not happening now.

One question I find myself asking is: should we try to keep expanding the population up to the point where we see mass deaths due to resource shortages?

Or stop earlier?

One question I find myself asking is: should we try to keep expanding the population

Who do you mean by "we"? And what are "we" doing to "keep expanding the population"?

Without these sorts of specifics, it's difficult to even start thinking about costs, benefits, and practicality.

That being said, I think it's worth keeping in mind that there are a lot of bad actors out there who are happy to spin, wildly exaggerate, and outright lie about impending disasters in order to grift or otherwise promote some kind of agenda. Often it's pretty obvious by their actions that these people don't seriously believe in the scare stories the peddle.

So generally speaking, I am extremely skeptical of any argument along these lines:

(1) There is an impending environmental disaster

(5) Therefore, my allies and I should received goodies and/or my out-group should be punished and humiliated.

The general argument form you've sketched, apart from the word 'environmental', is the core of a vast range of positions in politics. I agree we should be sceptical of all such arguments but there is simply no avoiding them, or it will be difficult for anyone to raise concerns about things unless they are personally unaffected.

My own view on the overpopulation question is that a flatlining population is necessarily good at some level of population/technology/culture, otherwise our species will be courting disaster. Whether we have got close to this point yet is an empirical matter.

The general argument form you've sketched, apart from the word 'environmental', is the core of a vast range of positions in politics. I agree we should be sceptical of all such arguments but there is simply no avoiding them

Sure, which is why I said "extremely skeptical." Because sometimes the IRS really does call people about tax issues.

or it will be difficult for anyone to raise concerns about things unless they are personally unaffected.

Well at a minimum people should act like they seriously believe their claims. For example, if Greta Thunberg seriously believes that we are on the brink of a climate catastrophe, it's difficult to see why she would invest so much time and energy into the Gaza conflict. To put it simply, how dare she?

My own view on the overpopulation question is that a flatlining population is necessarily good at some level of population/technology/culture, otherwise our species will be courting disaster. Whether we have got close to this point yet is an empirical matter.

Given the rapid changes in technology taking place, it's not an easy question to answer with certitude. Actually, that's not totally true. When someone predicts that the sky is falling, it's usually pretty safe to bet that they are wrong.

Anyway, for me, I would be interested to know what specific policies are being proposed by environmentalists to achieve "flatlining population"? I have a strange feeling that they are remarkably similar to general Leftist policy goals.

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