site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   25352 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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.

I believe both. Old people can be comfortable if they earn it, but unless they're my family I'm not willing to make the comfortable at my expense.

Except you also say old people who worked and saved ("earned it") should be "cleared out." So you don't want them to be given anything, and you don't want them to keep anything they earned, you basically just want everyone but your parents put on an ice floe once they can no longer work?

You said old people who have saved money they earned while working should be "cleared out." You can rationalize it however you like with a retooled version of the Privilege argument, but your definition of "taking" from you appears to be "having things you want." You're essentially making the same argument that reparations people do, that white people have all this Stuff they don't deserve because of historical inequities blah blah blah and therefore they deserve to have it taken from them and redistributed.

Telling people "You owe me" does not make them sympathetic to your suffering. And it's honestly hard to take your "suffering" seriously when you simultaneously claim to be in the top 5% income bracket yet unable to afford a family. I am not sure if you're sincere or just a high-effort troll. You're approaching the @KulakRevolt level of cartoonish edgelordy ragebait. You are not presenting serious arguments, just an inchoate spew of resentments.

As much as it might pain you to here, having had worked entitles you to nothing but becoming dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind. None of us are "entitled" to anything, it's all what we can earn and what others give us.

Our civilization is much more built on those who are dust than those who sit on boats with OAPs.

Every civilization has made various provisions for the no-longer-working elderly. Some took the attitude you do, that once they can no longer work, they serve no purpose and should just die. Those civilizations were not nice, and are now dust in the wind, and that's a good thing.

my comment is that while it feel like that pension and that savings account is a sure thing for some current 65 year old, it's really not. It's really a gift from the young people who give it present value.

It's not a gift. It's an inter-generational agreement: "We will take care of our old, and in turn our young will take care of us." You can of course argue that you want to change or abolish that agreement. Maybe you are confident your children will take care of you, or maybe you're content to walk out onto an ice floe when you are too old to work. But the reason we don't typically decide "Appropriate all savings, abolish all pensions, nullify all previous agreements" is that this leads to extremely unstable, low-trust societies in which everyone maximizes their own immediate benefit because they expect the young to take everything from them at the first opportunity. If I know young people are going to try to take everything from me when I can no longer defend it, I am not going to think about how to make young people's lives better to appease them, I'm going to think about how I can protect myself and keep them powerless. Rather the opposite of what you want.

It's really a gift from the young people who give it present value. We can take part or all of that gift away like a toy from a toddler if the 65 year old acts too entitled over it. It's a privilege, not a right. That is my point.

So the degree to which old people should be allowed to keep anything is the degree to which they flatter and appease you?

That is what boomers did, so they should be treated like they behave. They broke the social contract, not young people.

What social contract did boomers break? Being too healthy and not dying young enough?

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