site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13466 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 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.

I gotta imagine you'd see a lot of arguments-

"It's disgusting," "making it is terrible," "having this exist encourages production, consumption, and interest," various religious and specific ethical motivations etc etc.

Production is bad is probably the most clear and obvious bad outcome but the vast majority of people would be against drawn or AI versions.

Production is bad is probably the most clear and obvious bad outcome but the vast majority of people would be against drawn or AI versions.

I've actually wondered about how people would feel about a government making an "authorized list" of confirmed AI-generated CSAM with no CSAM in the training data, that would be the only legal form of such content to own. Assuming that the mere consumption of CSAM doesn't encourage victimization of real children, this seems like the best all around compromise, if you can figure out how to distribute it in a way the government can't easily track.

If the government can easily track it, it just becomes a blackmailer's wet dream. Although, we're in an era where "they fabricated all of the evidence connecting me to this" is an increasingly plausible claim, considering where generative AI is.

I'm definitely not comfortable with AI content trained on actual cp. That feels like extending the abuse of the victim into eternity.

I am 100% against CSAM existing in any capacity, but your objection raises a question - is it about training data? Would an AGI that can act based off of extrapolation salve your objections?

I mean, personally I think porn of real people should simply be illegal (outside of private production and consumption i.e. it's okay to take naked pictures of your spouse and enjoy them).

But in terms of a compromise within our current legal and social frameworks, yes, I think it makes sense to allow for AI-generated content so long as it's not derived from actual CSAM. Not healthy for the user, but that occurs to me as their problem, and I have no reason to believe it would make them more likely to actually engage in abuse.

And then there's written or drawn erotica which should also -- again I say in compromise with the current framework -- be unconstrained IMO. The idea that it should be illegal to write about or draw... pretty much anything strikes me as ludicrous. Especially given the ambiguity (re: age, etc.) inherent in many such works.

Thank you for indulging my curiosity!

Mandatory abortions for women who rape boys when?

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