site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15453 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 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.

Let's take that to the extreme.

25 and 17 is 8 year age gap. 18 and 17 is 1 year age gap. When Mr 25 was 18, Ms 17 was 10. You cool with an 18 year old fucking a 10 year old? Because that's where the objections are coming from: when A was the age B is now, B was way too damn young.

Nah the logic of why it is questionable is wrong. The same logic would hold it’s wrong if you add ten years to each (ie a 35 year old and a 28 year old). Yet no one blinks an eye at that (yet he was 18 when she was 11).

I think the concern is that teenagers are quasi adults and actual adults can prey on them easily — much easier than other quasi adults.

So 18 and 17 is fine. 35 and 28 is fine. But 25 and 18 is questionable

Literally how does their age 7 years ago matter in the present? It's not even the "babysitter fucking their ward once the ward grows up", they had not known each other in this hypothetical.

Ten and seventeen are very different ages, and it is in no way inconsistent to treat them that way. You are, presumably, ok with, say, 32 and 50- maybe a bit weird, but few people would say 'it's a problem'- even though when 50 was 32 32 was way too young to be dating adults(or, I would say, anyone at all).

I'm totally against 25/17 and the OP but this logic doesn't hold water either.

Are you against a 30 year old marrying a 50 year old? When the 50 year old was 30, the 30 year old was only 10! Nevertheless, it seems quite clear that a 30 year old can consent to marry a 50 year old.

I'm totally against 25/17

How do you justify that at all?

You can move too far in the other direction; Mr 50 and Ms 32 may be okay now, but when Mr 70 and Ms 52 are together? Too much of an age gap and it ends up where the younger partner is more or less the caretaker for the older one while the younger partner is still near their prime.

Very few men are clamouring for the right to date 40 year old women, it's the guys who are pushing the limits on "if 17 old enough, why not 16? If 16 old enough why not 15?" that set off the alarm bells.

You can move too far in the other direction; Mr 50 and Ms 32 may be okay now, but when Mr 70 and Ms 52 are together? Too much of an age gap and it ends up where the younger partner is more or less the caretaker for the older one while the younger partner is still near their prime.

First of all, that's not really a good reason to oppose a relationship. Second of all... one partner is rather likely to end up the caretaker of the other one way or another.

Too much of an age gap and it ends up where the younger partner is more or less the caretaker for the older one while the younger partner is still near their prime.

Well sure, it's ill advised, but I hardly see why it's anyone else's business, unlike the 25/17 situation.

unlike the 25/17 situation.

This is not anyone's business except the 17 year old's parents. Society does not own other people's daughters. It's kind of creepy that random unrelated grown men are worried about what other people's daughters are doing with their private parts, actually.

when A was the age B is now, B was way too damn young.

Do you extend this logic to retirees: that 78 and 70 are not supposed to date?

That's an 8 year gap and not as bad. Once over the age of adulthood and into maturity, the disparity is remedied. The problem at the younger end is that it's not about "Well she's physically able to get pregnant and deliver a child", it's about "she (or he) really is too damn young and inexperienced for all the troubles of adult life".

Even grown ups have their marriages fail due to problems, why would an 'old enough to be my dad and me' couple do much better under the same kind of stressors?

Presumably, they do better than two twenty year olds getting married because there's a real adult and a quasi-adult, rather than two quasi adults. Yes, that says all sorts of things about power dynamics in the relationship, which is the reason to look real hard at the guy who claims to want this(not nonsense about his browser history). But if he intends to marry her in a timely manner and treat her well, I mean, women are supposed to submit to their husbands anyways.

women are supposed to submit to their husbands anyways.

We can't have nice things because feminists disagree with this. That's the core of it.

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