site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23704 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.

Also it's not without limits since the parents can only veto the relationship, not compel it. Also what is even less convincing is that my daughter's genitals are your business at all. A pretty weird notion if you ask me.

Also it's not without limits since the parents can only veto the relationship, not compel it.

There's plenty of things that we don't allow people to let their kids do.

Also what is even less convincing is that my daughter's genitals are your business at all. A pretty weird notion if you ask me.

Pal, you don't have a daughter. This whole post is about how you want to coom in underage pussy. Let's drop the "no, you're weird!" act.

There's plenty of things that we don't allow people to let their kids do.

Yeah, like allowing them to play outside. The exact same excuse of "but random marauding penises" is used to justify that too, in fact.

You've got it backwards. As long as you agree that there is at least one thing that we shouldn't allow parents to do, then the argument of "it's none of society's business what parents let their kids do" is bogus.

As long as you agree that there is at least one thing that we shouldn't allow parents to do

I actually don't, though. Parental moral hazard might be bad, but societal moral hazard is even worse.

Of course, the catch here is "once they're out of the house, parental rights evaporate". So it's vital that we make sure that pathways to a serviceable life are available to the average teenager should that be needed.

I actually don't, though.

So you think that parents should be allowed to prostitute their children?

Pal, you don't have a daughter. This whole post is about how you want to coom in underage pussy. Let's drop the "no, you're weird!" act.

You don't know anything about me. this is clearly bad faith / inflammatory but society tolerates this bad attitude on this topic so it's unlikely the mods will enforce any rules on you here for this. In an unbiased and reasonable world your view would be on the defensive because it is poorly thought out, in general and especially when weighted by how extremely controlling it is. A romantic relationship involving two families is not sarker's business at all. You are literally irrelevant to what family A and family B and their son and daughter do and you need a lot better reasoning than saying your rules are good enough before you can justly enforce anything like that.

You don't know anything about me.

So, do you have a daughter?

A romantic relationship involving two families is not sarker's business at all.

A romantic relationship involves two individuals, not families.

A romantic relationship involves two individuals, not families.

Haven't you read Romeo and Juliet? That idea is deadly.

So no daughter after all?

Excellent example - Romeo and Juliet turned out deadly because of the meddling of the families. Two consenting adults getting married would be a non-issue if those honor culture goons hadn't been obsessed with their blood feud to the detriment of everything else.

Excellent example - Romeo and Juliet turned out deadly because of the meddling of the families.

No they turned out deadly because they went behind the families' backs.

two consenting adults getting married would be a non-issue if those honor culture goons hadn't been obsessed with their blood feud to the detriment of everything else.

13 year old Juliet is a consenting adult to you? I guess I took you for more of a normie. Nevermind then.

No they turned out deadly because they went behind the families' backs.

This is like someone punching you in the face and saying you made them do it because you called them a mean name.

13 year old Juliet is a consenting adult to you? I guess I took you for more of a normie. Nevermind then.

She isn't, which is why she shouldn't have been allowed to marry and her family shouldn't have been plotting a marriage for her.

The "deadly" situation in the play is a mixture of tribal honor culture and child marriage which results in terrible outcomes everywhere it's tried (see e.g. the Arab world). It's a total nonsequitur to pretend that this is an argument against limiting marriage to consenting adults.

This is like someone punching you in the face and saying you made them do it because you called them a mean name.

This is the best solution to childhood bullies actually.

She isn't, which is why she shouldn't have been allowed to marry and her family shouldn't have been plotting a marriage for her.

Nice try, but you said she was.

The "deadly" situation in the play is a mixture of tribal honor culture and child marriage which results in terrible outcomes everywhere it's tried (see e.g. the Arab world).

Are you so racist that you think their above replacement TFR is a terrible outcome?

More comments

You're happy to have your daughter's genitals be my business if I'm the thirty year old guy wanting to fuck your seventeen year old girl, though.

Adults being concerned about the behaviour of children and young not-yet-adults, and older kids and actual adults around those kids, is how society protects children. "Not my kid, not my family, not my business" is how abuse gets ignored and permitted to continue.

Am I allowed to be concerned about "your daughter's genitals" if she's fifteen and working as a public prostitute in danger of STIs and unwanted pregnancy? Or should I just shut up, Daddy is happy since he's pimping her out and only Daddy gets to make it his business? Am I allowed to be concerned if Daddy is the one fucking her, or is that still none of my business?

The court heard that Sophia Murphy was subjected to "depraved, deeply inappropriate and extensive abuse" by her father.

While the prosecution did not argue that Curran witnessed the abuse of Sophia Murphy, it did contend that, due to the frequency at which it occurred, she was aware of it.

Over the course of the proceedings, Garda Inspector Thomasina McHugh told Judge Sinéad McMullan that the victim was aged between three and 16 years of age, at the time the abuse took place. It happened on a daily basis in multiple rooms of the family home and also in a car.

The offences were said to have been carried out in a "brazen" manner and were "prolific in their frequency".

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