site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26638 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

and so forth, there is kind of a collective action problem. It's difficult to tell your children they can't use some popular social media site if all their friends at school are using it. Even if most of the parents would prefer to keep their kids off of social media, few parents want to be the first one to do it. A blanket rule, for example, that nobody under 16 can use Facebook, would solve this collective action problem.

This narrative is about as compelling to me as there being a deep state conspiracy to destroy privacy. A better narrative is that individual parents feel they would be individually better off if they took their individual kids' phone away, but they feel too weak to do that. So they want the government to discipline their kids for them. Normal people can't identify collective action problems well, it's too complex of a scenario. A well documented collective action problem is credentialism, and people can't grasp it because they just see that they would be better off personally if they consumed more education. Since collective action problems are complex, they also require solid documentation to prove. Bryan Caplan produced this for credentialism, but the data on teenage phone usage doesn't prove a collective action problem. It argues, poorly, that teenagers are individually better off when their individual social media usage is reduced. So the question of „why not parent“ must be answered individualistically. My guess is that individual parents feel weaker than in the past.

It argues, poorly, that teenagers are individually better off when their individual social media usage is reduced.

The teenagers themselves agree. 68% of them feel worse after spending time online. 50% say a digital curfew would improve their lives, 47% would prefer to live in a world where the internet doesn't exist.

And, pertinent to what we're talking about:

79% say technology companies should be required by law to build robust privacy safeguards into technology and platforms used by children and teenagers, such as age verification or identity checks.

How much data do we need to show that teenagers are stuck in a collective action problem when supermajorities of them are saying 'please help us get out of this collective action problem'?

How much data do we need to show that teenagers are stuck in a collective action problem when supermajorities of them are saying 'please help us get out of this collective action problem'?

I have data that says only 16% agree that a total phone ban at school is a good idea, and only 30% agree that any phone restrictions at all are a good idea. Tracks well with my experience in school.

The teenagers themselves agree. 68% of them feel worse after spending time online.

Caused by doom scrolling and algo slop. Fix social media, don't target adult privacy rights and teenagers' access to phones.

50% say a digital curfew would improve their lives,

Sleep related. Best solution is to delay school start times and encourage parents to give teenagers a bedtime, not this spyware bill.

47% would prefer to live in a world where the internet doesn't exist.

Not a majority, too abstract a question, just a vibe, also too bad, this bill doesn't make the internet disappear (which would be a disaster), it just attacks internet privacy.

How much data do we need to show that teenagers are stuck in a collective action problem when supermajorities of them are saying 'please help us get out of this collective action problem'?

You'd need a book like The Case Against Education. Except, The Anxious Generation was slop and didn't even include most of the data Haidt used on Substack to make the case. He actually dumbed it down for normies. Apparently normies need a fallacious book to accept that there is a problem, but a non-fallacious one can't be produced. Hm.

I have data that says only 16% agree that a total phone ban at school is a good idea, and only 30% agree that any phone restrictions at all are a good idea. Tracks well with my experience in school.

I would distinguish between school discipline matters and social matters. Clearly, young people aren't happy with the digital first childhood, but all kids like messing around in school. The two positions aren't really in conflict. Although frankly, the idea that we should be consulting children on the kind of discipline they are subject to seems pretty stupid. I imagine a lot of kids would like to be able to bring alcohol into school too.

Caused by doom scrolling and algo slop. Fix social media, don't target adult privacy rights and teenagers' access to phones.

I mean, I'm 100% behind banning stuff like infinite scroll, but it's not like there's a big button governments can press that says 'make the digital world not addictive'. I mean, really think about what that would entail. You'd have to ban video games, youtube, dating apps, Reddit and a bunch of other stuff I haven't thought of. There's an awful lot of stuff on the internet that is (or can be) addictive. I've dumbed down my phone about as much as possible and I still find myself idly scrolling on the Wikipedia app. Addictiveness is just a characteristic of the digital world. Banning it all for everyone would be far more authoritarian than just preventing teenagers from using the worst offending apps.

Sleep related. Best solution is to delay school start times and encourage parents to give teenagers a bedtime, not this spyware bill.

Delaying school start times isn't a bad idea, but we had early school start times before and we didn't have kids demanding restrictions on themselves. This is different. Also, bedtimes, really? Do you honestly think that parents haven't thought of 'tell your children to go to bed'? The kids themselves recognise the problem isn't 'lack of bedtimes', it's the addiction machine sitting on the bedside table.

Not a majority, too abstract a question, just a vibe, also too bad, this bill doesn't make the internet disappear (which would be a disaster), it just attacks internet privacy.

The very fact that such a high number would want to delete a technology that is so integrated into their lives should give you pause for thought. Teenagers in the 1920s didn't want to ban the radio, kids in the 50s didn't wish they lived in a world without television. The internet has clearly damaged the social fabric in a meaningful way, and the fact that young people have noticed too deserves more than a flippant response.

You'd need a book like The Case Against Education. Except, The Anxious Generation was slop and didn't even include most of the data Haidt used on Substack to make the case. He actually dumbed it down for normies. Apparently normies need a fallacious book to accept that there is a problem, but a non-fallacious one can't be produced. Hm.

I've read both of these books but I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Could you clarify?

Although frankly, the idea that we should be consulting children on the kind of discipline they are subject to seems pretty stupid.

Maybe less stupid than consulting the rabble on the kind of laws they are subject to, considering they destroy civilization when they choose wrong, but kids in school just have a little more fun, since school is pointless anyway.

I mean, I'm 100% behind banning stuff like infinite scroll, but it's not like there's a big button governments can press that says 'make the digital world not addictive'.

Governments could ban infinite scroll, start at a fine of $10 million per day of any company commanded to remove infinite scroll. I bet it will be gone quickly.

I mean, really think about what that would entail. You'd have to ban video games, youtube, dating apps, Reddit and a bunch of other stuff I haven't thought of.

No, you don't have to be any more consistent than your take on schools and democracy. The government is a murderous asshole that goes on random violent rampages over small triggers, it is not a Kantian philosopher attempting to achieve a perfectly Consistent moral Order of Things.

Addictiveness is just a characteristic of the digital world.

Either-or fallacy. Ponder heroin and cigarettes, if you will.

The very fact that such a high number would want to delete a technology that is so integrated into their lives should give you pause for thought.

Maybe it wouldn't replicate.

Teenagers in the 1920s didn't want to ban the radio, kids in the 50s didn't wish they lived in a world without television.

You don't know that.

I've read both of these books but I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Could you clarify?

How? What's confusing you?

encourage parents to give teenagers a bedtime

Do you not remember being 12/14 and arguing passionately that you were now old enough to be allowed stay up late(r)? Maybe you can force 15 year old Teen Kid to go to their bedroom, but you can't force them to go to sleep (and you can't lock them in, either).

Do you not remember being 12/14 and arguing passionately that you were now old enough to be allowed stay up late(r)?

Apparently 50% of them now want a bedtime, so why would this be an issue for them?

aybe you can force 15 year old Teen Kid to go to their bedroom, but you can't force them to go to sleep (and you can't lock them in, either).

But you can take their phone for the night, which is what I presume digital curfew means. Or use some kind of parental control so that it locks down.

build robust privacy safeguards into technology and platforms used by children and teenagers, such as age verification or identity checks

I agree that social media is an issue, but this sentence is giving me a stroke. Collecting data on your age and identity isn't what I'd call a "privacy safeguard".

Just because parents don't know what a collective action problem is doesn't mean they can't identify one. Not everyone works off of formal logic, parents can recognize that instagram is bad for kids at the same time as kids being socially isolated by being the only one not on instagram is bad for kids.

I have a previous thread about very conservative parents being better at their jobs, and my sources overemphasized discipline as a factor. Lots of the commentary was basically about how 'discipline' meant setting limits on social media. Plausibly your theory about parents feeling disempowered is supported therein; but short of spreading the folkways of the rightmost 10-20% or so of the population more broadly(and I have another thread about that), the best way to solve this specific problem of teen social media use is to make a law against it. They won't follow it voluntarily but it will let their parents enforce it.

Of course, I would prefer to be a selective libertarian and empower the rightmost 10-20% of the population by not doing anything to prevent the rest of it from self destructing. This is not out of a general commitment to freedom. But it's entirely understandable to me why social media bans that nobody knows how to enforce would be welcomed by parents.

Normal people can't identify collective action problems well, it's too complex of a scenario.

I disagree with this. Maybe normal people are unfamiliar with game theory; the prisoner's dilemma; nash equilibria; and so on. But definitely a lot of the time they can intuitively sense that there are situations where it would be good if everyone would agree to some X, but in the absence of an agreement, they feel pressured to go along with the crowd.

Since collective action problems are complex, they also require solid documentation to prove.

I disagree with this as well. Sometimes collective action problems are relatively straightforward and sometimes common sense is more than sufficient to recognize that one exists.

but the data on teenage phone usage doesn't prove a collective action problem.

I'm not familiar with any formal research, however I'm pretty confident just based on general observations and common sense. Above, you asked why parents don't simply take their children's phones away. I am quite confident that -- part of -- the answer to this question is that parents don't want their children to be the weirdo in class who doesn't have a phone; who's out of the loop; etc.

I'm pretty confident just based on general observations and common sense.

Common sense in this case is a hammer you got from slate star codex, for which everything is a nail. My common sense says the hammer is a specialty one and it doesn't fit all but a few nails. Alas, rationalists are always trying to use it anyway. Collective action this, game theory that, moloch thing there, prisoner's dilemma here.

I am quite confident that -- part of -- the answer to this question is that parents don't want their children to be the weirdo in class who doesn't have a phone; who's out of the loop; etc.

I don't think parents implementing common sense social media controls to their under-16 children would make them the weird kid in class. It would not amount to completely depriving them of a phone or the ability to text friends.

But definitely a lot of the time they can intuitively sense that there are situations where it would be good if everyone would agree to some X, but in the absence of an agreement, they feel pressured to go along with the crowd.

Except they fail to do this in the most important cases. Probably because their heuristic is asking whether the thing is individually good. They don't think teen phone usage is individually good, the mainstream argument is not collective action problem, it is individual parenting problem.

Common sense in this case is a hammer you got from slate star codex, for which everything is a nail

For what it may be worth, I was studying game theory when Scott was still in diapers.

I don't think parents implementing common sense social media controls to their under-16 children would make them the weird kid in class. It would not amount to completely depriving them of a phone or the ability to text friends.

You are sort of shifting the goalposts here. Earlier, you referred to completely taking away a child's phone:

"individual parents feel they would be individually better off if they took their individual kids' phone away, but they feel too weak to do that.

But anyway, let's break this down.

  1. Do you agree that many parents perceive that their children's use of social media is harmful?

  2. Do you agree that of those parents, many also perceive that their children are likely to end up being isolated/left out/etc. if their child stops using social media while their children's peers continue to do so?

Except they fail to do this in the most important cases.

Well do you think there are ANY situations where normal people can intuitively and correctly sense that there is a collective action problem, even if they are unable to make use of the formal language and terminology?

The collective action problem is other parents. And of course, other kids.

You can't control what happens in other people's houses when your kid goes over to a friend's house. Maybe the parents are lax, maybe they don't care if their 12 year old kid is watching porn, maybe they have no idea. Boys are going to dare one another over "did you see this?"

Well do you think there are ANY situations where normal people can intuitively and correctly sense that there is a collective action problem, even if they are unable to make use of the formal language and terminology?

No, I think they lack the cognitive capacity for anything beyond „X is bad, because if it happens to me, I won't like it“ and „Y is good, because if it happens to me, I will like it“. That's the basis for all of our laws and our education system and economic system. The masses have failed to accept every well-documented collective action problem I can think of. It's because they require someone to be top 10% literacy to comprehend.

For example, this comment. He argues

teenagers are stuck in a collective action problem [because] supermajorities of them are saying 'please help us get out of this collective action problem'?

But the evidence follows the individual heuristic I just wrote:

68% of them feel worse after spending time online. 50% say a digital curfew would improve their lives, 47% would prefer to live in a world where the internet doesn't exist.

„I feel bad after too much time online, so I would be better with less time online. I sleep too little because of phone, so I would be better off putting phone away early. I feel bad on the internet, so I would like the internet to go away.“ And seriously, the last one is preposterous, can you imagine the collective economic damage if there was no internet? Meanwhile, when it comes to actual collective action, I have data that says only 16% agree that a total phone ban at school is a good idea, and only 30% agree that any phone restrictions at all are a good idea. They don't want collective action.

Do you agree that many parents perceive that their children's use of social media is harmful?

Yes.

Do you agree that of those parents, many also perceive that their children are likely to end up being isolated/left out/etc. if their child stops using social media while their children's peers continue to do so?

No, because I think a solid fix is a screen time limit, and this doesn't lead to complete isolation. I think parents don't do this because they are lazy and weak and won't fight with their teens.

Earlier, you referred to completely taking away a child's phone:

I meant partially, or on a temporary basis for a particular reason.

No, I think they lack the cognitive capacity for anything beyond „X is bad, because if it happens to me, I won't like it“ and „Y is good, because if it happens to me, I will like it“. That's the basis for all of our laws and our education system and economic system.

I disagree. For example, I'm pretty sure most people favor laws against income tax evasion. Even though most people would cheat on their taxes if they could get away with it.

Do you dispute that most people favor laws against income tax evasion?

I feel bad after too much time online, so I would be better with less time online. I sleep too little because of phone, so I would be better off putting phone away early. I feel bad on the internet, so I would like the internet to go away.“

Ok, and is so preposterous to hypothesize that people might have the following feelings: (1) I feel bad when I am away from social media because I feel left out; and (2) I feel bad when I use social media because I feel inadequate compared to a lot of my connections.

No, because I think a solid fix is a screen time limit, and this doesn't lead to complete isolation.

Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"? I am not asking about screen time limits. I am asking this:

Do you agree that of those parents, many also perceive that their children are likely to end up being isolated/left out/etc. if their child stops using social media while their children's peers continue to do so?

It's a very simple yes or no question.

What are the common sense social media controls you're thinking of, exactly?

As far as I can guess at teen mindsets, having a dumb phone that is not designed to have apps in 2026 is exactly the kind of thing that would make a kid the weird kid in class.

What are the common sense social media controls you're thinking of, exactly?

Parental controls? Time limits? The main harm is scrolling for too long.

Parental controls? Time limits? The main harm is scrolling for too long.

I don't know if that's the main harm, but certainly a significant potential harm is the feeling of constantly comparing yourself to other people and feeling that you don't measure up in some way. It's hard to see how this would be prevented with time limits. Or with parental controls other than simply preventing your child from being on social media.

but certainly a significant potential harm is the feeling of constantly comparing yourself to other people and feeling that you don't measure up in some way.

Unfortunately, this is just reality. And it relates to one or two collective action problems the masses don't comprehend. The best documented of these is the eugenics problem; less well documented but probably real is a problem with the economy where too much is based on luck, so people have to watch those with the same or lesser genetic endowment as themselves be much more privileged, which is wrong. But they can only think of the dumbest communism as a solution to this and that didn't work so well, so they have given up. Communism of course is based on the selfish heuristic of I would be better if I had more stuff, and not based on true collective action problem logic. The real solution would use IQ tests and would be enforced meritocracy or something along those lines.

Unfortunately, this is just reality.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Do you dispute anything I said in the post you were responding to?

The real solution would use IQ tests and would be enforced meritocracy or something along those lines.

The problem with all meritocracy plans is that we don't have a rigorous definition of merit. We exist in a meritocracy if by merit we mean ability through whatever means to convince people to give you power. For various reasons people don't think this definition of merit is well aligned with their interests. I don't think a purely highest IQ people get the power would be particularly aligned with my interests either, maybe more so than the status quo, maybe not, but certainly smart people can get into all sorts of trouble.

the data on teenage phone usage doesn't prove a collective action problem

Why doesn't it? I guess I have to go dig it up, but there's literally surveys with teenagers where they're asked if they think they'd be better off with no social media but don't want to stop using social media if everyone else is still on it.

Literally the definition of a collective action problem.

Why doesn't it? I guess I have to go dig it up, but there's literally surveys with teenagers where they're asked if they think they'd be better off with no social media but don't want to stop using social media if everyone else is still on it.

Yeah, in general I am skeptical of people's self-reporting about their desires, motivations, and feelings. But here, it's basically just common sense, following from basic principles of human nature and social media, among them: (1) comparison is the thief of joy, and the more comparison the less joy; (2) social media facilitates intense comparison; and (3) nobody likes to feel left out, which includes not being the social media site being used by one's peers.

Why doesn't it?

Because it only argues, poorly, that teenagers are individually better off when their individual social media usage is reduced.

but there's literally surveys with teenagers where they're asked if they think they'd be better off with no social media but don't want to stop using social media if everyone else is still on it.

I haven't seen this, I don't recall Jonathan Haidt talking about it. I'm mostly thinking of his work on the topic.

Literally the definition of a collective action problem.

Allowing teens aged 16 to 19 on social media while demanding photo ID from anyone to use any device doesn't appear to solve that problem.

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