site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7220 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 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.

Talk about moving goalposts. We're not talking about causing discomfort by making unwanted advances, we're talking about sex, and some of us are still backward enough to think that's a big deal.

There is no way to consistently think sex is a big enough deal that are willing lock up single women for having sex with a 16 year old boy consensually, but you refuse to log up adulterers in general. Adultery actually has a victim, the Hanania meme does not.

An adult woman can't have consensual sex with an underage boy by definition. Adults cheating on one another don't need society to step in. Adults fucking kids do.

16 year olds aren't underage boys, if you define underage boys to be people who can't consent to sex with women. The cutoff here would be 12 or 13 on average. Really it depends on puberty timing and IQ but if you have to project that onto age it would be 12 or 13 I think.

Adults cheating on one another don't need society to step in.

Okay, then adults stealing from one another don't need society to step in. Legalize stealing? It's not like the one spouse consents when the other cheats. If they do, maybe that's another matter. It's polygamy more than it is adultery and it's a separate discussion as to whether to tolerate it. If they don't consent, they're being victimized and I think they need society to step in. What are they going to do in 2026, beat the cheating spouse? Kill them with stones? Then society steps in on the side of the cheater. Something has to give.

Okay, then adults stealing from one another don't need society to step in. Legalize stealing? It's not like the one spouse consents when the other cheats.

Adults cheating is at most a contract violation, which unlike stealing would be a civil offense rather than a criminal one. Your partner doesn't require your consent to have sex with someone other than you.

Adults cheating is at most a contract violation

No, it's historically a crime that could result in execution.

Your comment is just stating the normie/liberal position instead of an argument. Rhetorically, it's flawed.

I think your definition is wrong. Whatever age you decide on as the cutoff, it means that the society assumes consent when both partners are above this age, modulo literal mental disability.

Below this age? The lack of consent is not automatic (and if it is, it's the fault of a badly written law), the assumption of the lack of consent is. The couple has to prove their relationship is healthy when challenged, but they should be able to prove it.

I would be fine with two cutoff dates, with the lower one separating "definitely a crime" from "could be problematic".

I would be fine with two cutoff dates, with the lower one separating "definitely a crime" from "could be problematic".

They used to have this in Europe more often but radical feminists have insisted otherwise. Although Germany still has a law like this. They got rid of it in Belgium and France. It was 13 for the age of consent and 15 or 16 for the age of could be problematic.

No, children are unable to consent to sex with adults. There is often a lower cutoff for sex with peers, but not adults.

There is often a lower cutoff for sex with peers, but not adults.

Why? Teenagers are often attracted to adults, mostly in their 20s, and adults in their 20s are often attracted to teenagers. Is this just about romantic affirmative action for teenage boys?

Yes, but being a child is not a binary toggle.

The couple has to prove their relationship is healthy when challenged, but they should be able to prove it.

It has nothing to do with the outcome for the couple (insert "I consent/I consent/I don't" meme here).

Whatever age you decide on as the cutoff, it means that the society assumes consent when both partners are above this age

It doesn't even do this now. It's actually impossible to consent to sex; participants cannot bind themselves in this way (and may cry rape/coercion ex post facto at any time no matter how ridiculous it is).

But that was the problem with defining "consent" to stop needing to have the "sex isn't harmful to anyone, so that's why kids can have it" argument in the first place. Consent is simply waiving the veto power society entitles you to over sex, which is why doing so is not possible.

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