site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27186 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 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.

Well, for one thing, if her date tries to force himself on her using one of the aforementioned excuses, he is less likely to gain her acquiescence and more likely to end up with a face full of pepper spray, a kick to the nadgers, and/or a court summons.

And how does that work out for your daughter? The context being one of these:

Alice stays overnight at Bob's house

Alice got drunk and pursued sex with every other man in their circle

Alice eagerly consented to sex with Bob last week, and it does not change

Alice and Bob declared at a large public ceremony and in official records that they intended to have an ongoing sexual relationship

I'm not advocating rape or anything but one must remember that men's facial bones are a lot sturdier than women's bones, and the same punch in the face has very different effects between the two. There are men out there who will tank several bullets before being incapable of further violence, and since all that matters to you is the practicality of consent and not the context in which it takes place, prioritizing violent resistance could spell big trouble for your daughter. Sometimes rape turns into murder.

After all, if Alice was previously having enthusiastic sex with Bob and Bob is a rapist, perhaps Alice has a thing for rapists.

Of course if you never told Alice that perhaps she should not be inebriated in the company of hulking gang members with face tattoos and multiple convictions for violent crimes, and you hold dear that whatever choices Alice make are reasonable ones that should never be looked at if she ever gets victimized, perhaps Bob is, shocker, prone to raping.

If Alice somehow survives one 'consent incident' with Bob, would you enthusiastically support her going drinking with Bob the following week?

This is apparently the accusation leveled against Eric Swalwell, that the same woman was taken advantage of in 2 separate instances of intoxication around him.

I am referring to the simpler case in which Alice does not want to be intimate with Bob, makes this quite clear to him, and he forces himself on her anyway.

How could she make it clear to him if Bob is too drunk to consent and presumably understand that she is not consenting?

And if they don't, what stops Alice from channeling Lorena Bobbitt?

Indeed why aren't women just killing rapists left and right? This is just another version of choosing the man or the bear, and women pick the man.

They are certainly not immune to such, but someone who publicly avers that, if a woman does XYZ, he is entitled to coitus with her regardless of her preferences, and to take it forcibly if she does not agree, is probably (1.) more dangerous, and (2.) not someone I want raising children.

Sounds like a character straight out of the latest top-selling romantasy.

I'm not advocating rape or anything but one must remember that men's facial bones are a lot sturdier than women's bones, and the same punch in the face has very different effects between the two.

Which is why I advise her to aim lower, and use the moments in which he is doubled over in pain to execute the Thirty-Sixth Stratagem.

Of course if you never told Alice that perhaps she should not be inebriated in the company of hulking gang members with face tattoos and multiple convictions for violent crimes, and you hold dear that whatever choices Alice make are reasonable ones that should never be looked at if she ever gets victimized, perhaps Bob is, shocker, prone to raping.

I would advise her not to be inebriated at all; however, if she chooses to disregard my advice, and is sexually assaulted, her decisions are not relevant to the questions of "How much effort ought we expend to prosecute the perpetrator?" and "What sentence ought the perpetrator, if convicted, receive?"

Indeed why aren't women just killing rapists left and right?

Because have the alternative of involving the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders, both of whom consider sexually-based offences especially heinous.

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