site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22369 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.

Either way you'll notice that, if this is true, it is precisely why tobacco is covered by heavy vice taxes.

Can I just point to history to show that we are very good as a species in judging our own behaviour objectively against others? The existence of the Russell conjugation proves it really, as it is describing a very common behaviour, for which the term would not need to be created if the action did not exist. I absolutely concede that there are some people who are rational enough not to do it. I think history shows the majority of humanity does though. Arguably that's part of the whole reason rationalism exists as an ethos/sub-culture.

As for smoking, "sin" taxes are indeed one way to square the circle, because they also disincentivize buying the product. But for gay people sex is the "product" and while we could raise taxes on rent boys, I don't think that really will be helpful volume wise. Adding a sin tax to Prep disincentivizes people buying it which makes the treatment happen less frequently. That's the opposite of what a sin tax is meant to achieve.

That's why you can't treat all "sins" the same. For some making the sin more expensive may help (where you have to buy a product or service) because it might make people indulge less frequently and you can put that money towards offsetting costs (see tobacco, alcohol, sugar et al). But in many other cases the sin is free. So making the preventives cheaper fills the same niche. Despite time periods that had heavy shame towards gay men, we have found no way to prevent them having pretty large amounts of sex with each other. Even in places where being gay can get you executed, it still happens, just more hidden. That's why you raise costs on smoking but make condoms free for example.

I appreciate the correction, though I reserve the right to skepticism until I look into it further.

Sure, that is absolutely understandable. I think it's likely in some places with some combinations of taxes and healthcare/social care costs smoking may be cheaper. In others it might not be. The breakpoint is likely to change across time as well.

Can I just point to history to show that we are very good as a species in judging our own behaviour objectively against others? The existence of the Russell conjugation proves it really, as it is describing a very common behaviour, for which the term would not need to be created if the action did not exist.

I don't think that's anywhere near sufficient, when I could probably match any instance of a Russel Conjugation you can name off the top off your head with a case of Stereotype Accuracy that I can name off the top of mine. If you want to argue that his particular subject is a case of a Russel Conjugation, you have to do so specifically, particularly when the gay community proudly endorses the observation about itself that you are implicitly disputing.

As for smoking, "sin" taxes are indeed one way to square the circle, because they also disincentivize buying the product. But for gay people sex is the "product"

Well, after establishing that there's nothing inappropriate about the government stepping in to discourage actions that impose a cost on society, it feels like this is just haggling over the price, especially that in the case of smoking the government does not limit itself to taxes. It also issues large amounts of anti-smoking propaganda, bans pro-smoking propaganda, and passes regulations to make the act of smoking as inconvenient as possible. We might be able to meet in the middle where PrEP is still subsidized, but all the government, corporate, and NGO pride messaging is replaced with loud and unrepentant homophobia.

Except we did the homophobia thing remember? And the fat shaming thing. And still here we are. There are some things apparently you cannot propaganda your way out of.

So? Is it written somewhere that we can't return to an old solution? I'm also not sure I buy that it had no effect at all. And if the solutions seems too cruel, we can always just do the original idea of not subsidizing PrEP. Take your pick, but I don't see why you should get everything you want, and I nothing.

Well thats part of the problem. I'm not gay, but i did work in public health. It's not that I want this. If we could make gay men more cautious that would be great! I'd do it in a heartbeat. Just like making obese people eat less. It would be amazing!

But we must tackle the issue with the gays we have not the gays we wish we had. And keeping the gays in the closet and shaming them just meant they wouldn't come forward for treatment and then put wives of closeted men at risk and so on and so forth. We have been down this road. It failed and led us here.

Its not what I want vs what you want, its what seems to work best with the constraints we have.

Whats going to be easier getting cheap Prep or realigning society to put gay people back in the closet? Even allowing that shaming them would work?

You can go ahead and try to organize that. But in the meantime if you want to minimise breaking out into the rest of the populace making Prep cheap and easily available is the best lever we have.

It certainly is not perfect by any means.

Its not what I want vs what you want, its what seems to work best with the constraints we have.

Since when? The Covid response had very little to do with what works. Transgender medicine has very little to do with what works. "Racism is a public health crisis" had very little to do with what works. Why should I believe that another politically charged topic has something to do with what works?

Because you are talking to me, one person, not the whole of the world? Politics is politics so it will influence what happens and why. But neither of us are responsible for every other person just because we happen to share views with them.

But again note my arguments are pragmatic. Trump is not going to outlaw homosexuality. Your side lacks enough control of media to actually shame gay people like they used to be. You currently cannot try the old ways. Maybe in 5 or 10 years it will be. Who knows? Then the calculus might change.

Despite time periods that had heavy shame towards gay men, we have found no way to prevent them having pretty large amounts of sex with each other. Even in places where being gay can get you executed, it still happens, just more hidden. That's why you raise costs on smoking but make condoms free for example.

While I see what you're getting at, this seems to introduce the same perverse incentives as two-tier policing in the UK.

It's essentially saying: if you're meek and sensitive to your burden on society and respond rationally to incentives, the state should bring the hammer down every time you are inconvenient. If you're blindly stubborn, aggressive, and refuse to change what you're doing however much suffering it causes, then society should smile and figure out how to tolerate you and put loads of resources behind supporting you.

I think the framing is incorrect here. People in general are not rational, so Group 1 is almost certainly not responding to rational incentives, it is responding to the socialization and social pressures that can approximate rational behaviour and have evolved over time based upon certain situations and conditions.

But yes from a public health perspective what matters is what people do, not some world where you wish people would be more rational. Most people should eat fewer empty cheap calories. We seem entirely incapable of doing that. So public health messaging and resources should be allocated accordingly. The people you have not the people you wish you had.

As for Group 2 in your example, well arguably their socialized set of behaviours is indeed working. Group 2 is just as much a part of society as Group 1. They are under no obligation to bow to Group 1's preferences if they are not forced to do so. That's what a culture war is for. To determine whose cultural mores and preferences are dominant.

But in the meantime those at the cutting edge must work with the resources they have.

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