site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8266 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

d argue that holding someone against their will for no reason other than you can is wrong

Sure, but law enforcement/prison (usually) isn't a "just because we can" thing. Similar to how many people oppose murdering babies (which, by the way, violates their bodily autonomy) "just because we can". I.e. when "it's inconvenient for my lifestyle and/or the baby will have Down's Syndrome or similar" which accounts for roughly 95% of abortions. I'm personally a pro-life absolutist who opposes it even in danger to the life of the mother type situations (though I've grown into that position over time, I sadly used to be more "moderate" in my support of child murder), but for the modal abortion it's essentially done out of convenience, not necessity.

which, by the way, violates their bodily autonomy

I made a response to this same argument: here. The baby is violating my bodily autonomy, me removing them from MY body does not violate their bodily autonomy. Their inability to survive outside of MY body is not my problem. Pro-lifer's want to assign more moral weight to a baby than to a human, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason for it.

To be clear you are asking me to unpack a very complex and complicated topic that only marginally relates to the abortion topic in that they affect similar values. For similar levels of effort I'd like you to address how you can be pro-life yet not immediately donate your body and all your organs to help everyone who needs organ transplants. After all if bodily autonomy is not sacrosanct, and some humans have more moral worth than others, shouldn't we forcibly remove organs to help those of more moral virtue?

Or we can stay on the topic at hand...

pro-life absolutist

At least you are honest and consistent. I can respect that. I am near enough to a pro-choice absolutist, so I doubt we'll ever agree. Furthermore since I think humans are of equal moral worth (barring edge cases) and I am not religious, I don't see how I will ever consider a "child" (even granting a clump of cells is a child) of more moral worth than an existing human being. And thus be willing to abrogate the rights of one to support the rights of the other.

The baby is violating my bodily autonomy, me removing them from MY body does not violate their bodily autonomy.

You generally can't remove a baby without violating their bodily autonomy. Most abortions involve essentially blending the baby up and scraping them out.

Pro-lifer's want to assign more moral weight to a baby than to a human, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason for it.

I don't see how I will ever consider a "child" (even granting a clump of cells is a child) of more moral worth than an existing human being

That's just straight up weird, children have been almost universally considered to be of greater moral worth than adults for all of human history. Even animals are often willing to endanger or sacrifice themselves for the sake of children. Even from an atheistic and evolutionary point of view, ensuring the safety and well-being of children (over that of adults) is essential to the perpetuation of the species. Children are innocent (this was discussed more thoroughly by someone else in this thread), and innocent people have greater moral worth than those who are guilty of wrongdoing (and all adults have done some amount of wrongdoing, some more than others). The same way a serial killer adult has less moral worth than a non-serial killer adult. I don't see any way to see this differently without completely throwing out the idea that morality exists.

For similar levels of effort I'd like you to address how you can be pro-life yet not immediately donate your body and all your organs to help everyone who needs organ transplants. After all if bodily autonomy is not sacrosanct, and some humans have more moral worth than others, shouldn't we forcibly remove organs to help those of more moral virtue?

Because I'm not a utilitarian? Only utilitarian ethics (and similar deranged branches of ethics) would reach the conclusions you're suggesting. Just because all human life has inherent value but some are more valuable than others doesn't mean any and all measures to save the life of another are mandated. But there is nothing incompatible with this view and the view that we should not take active measures (like abortion) to end an innocent life.

You generally can't remove a baby without violating their bodily autonomy. Most abortions involve essentially blending the baby up and scraping them out.

In the hypothetical future where we do a C-section to remove the clump of cells that will be come a baby, or the partially formed baby without killing it in the uterus, you are then ok with abortion? Regardless of the baby's viability outside the womb?

That's just straight up weird, children have been almost universally considered to be of greater moral worth than adults for all of human history.

I feel like we don't even live in the same reality if you think this is remotely true. The revealed preference of pretty much all civilizations, cultures, creeds, and faiths is that children as a class are not given any special consideration. Individuals love their children and the children of friends and family (aka the tribe) but the children of the other tribe? Absolutely not. Anyone with even a basic understanding of history should know this.

  • Infant exposure in ancient Rome and Greece: unwanted newborns were abandoned or killed; this was a recognized social practice.
  • Medieval and early modern European infanticide and abandonment
  • The Children’s Crusade (1212)
  • Massacre at Béziers (1209) during the Albigensian Crusade, women, children, and the elderly were massacred.
  • Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day (1572) a major Christian sectarian massacre in France; children were not spared in the broader slaughter.
  • European transatlantic slave trade: children were trafficked with adults, and many died in transport and enslavement.
  • Industrial child labor in Britain children were heavily exploited in factories and mines under brutal conditions.
  • Great Irish Famine / workhouse regime: mass death and child suffering occurred under British rule, including harsh workhouse conditions.
  • Congo Free State under Leopold II mass atrocities under a European Christian monarchy; children were among the victims of forced labor and terror.
  • German genocide of the Herero and Nama (1904–07) women and children were imprisoned and worked under lethal conditions.
  • U.S. American Indian boarding schools: Native children were forcibly removed, abused, and many died in the system.
  • Canadian Indian residential schools: church-administered schools subjected Indigenous children to abuse, malnutrition, disease, and death.
  • Holocaust: Jewish children: Nazi Germany and collaborators killed about 1.5 million Jewish children.
  • Holocaust: Romani children: tens of thousands of Romani children were murdered.
  • Nazi “euthanasia” program / Aktion T4: disabled children in institutions were systematically killed.
  • Armenian Genocide (1915–16): children were deported and killed along with the wider Armenian population.
  • Holodomor (1932–33) a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine that starved civilians, including huge numbers of children.
  • Bengal famine of 1943: mass death from famine under British wartime rule, with children among the dead and malnourished.
  • Great Leap Forward famine: Chinese state policies caused catastrophic famine; children were among the millions who died.
  • Khmer Rouge Cambodia: mass death through starvation, forced labor, torture, and execution affected children on a huge scale.
  • Rwandan genocide (1994): children were murdered along with the broader Tutsi population and other targets.
  • Biafra / Nigerian Civil War starvation crisis: mass starvation devastated civilians, especially children, becoming a global symbol of famine.
  • Carthaginian child sacrifice: thousands of urns with burned child remains have been found at Carthage’s tofet.
  • Aztec and related Mesoamerican sacrificial systems: large-scale human sacrifice included children in some rites tied to rain and fertility cults.

Do I need to keep going?

If children occupied a universally elevated moral status in human societies. Then history should show near-taboo protection. It does not. It shows repeated infanticide, sacrifice, enslavement, starvation, institutional abuse, and massacre of children across civilizations, including Christian and Western ones. You may believe children deserve special moral protection, but history does not support the claim that humans have generally treated them as a uniquely sacred class.

Only utilitarian ethics (and similar deranged branches of ethics) would reach the conclusions you're suggesting.

Incorrect, a deontologist could easily reach the same conclusion, or a consequentialist. It just requires different values.

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