site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24225 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 6, 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.

Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner Outed as an Actual Rapist.

"Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner, who is now the Democratic Senate nominee in Maine, for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.

'I remember him grabbing my pelvis and being really forceful of me,” she said. 'I remember the specific moment where I thought to myself, like, ‘This is no longer my choice.’'"

Platner officially denies the allegations, but you can tell from his statement that deep down he knows it's true. He can't admit to it because he would go to actual jail, but everyone knows his campaign is over.

The haters said he would crash and burn, and they were correct. Honestly great call by the haters.

The Maine Democratic Party has one week until the ballot deadline to pick a candidate while stepping on as few toes as possible. Let the games begin.

Unlike the way you describe the link it is not "Platner outed as an actual rapist".

It is "women who dated him says it was rape, kinda, she didn't fight him off or stab him with the sewing needles or go to the cops or anything like that or even try to run out of the house after he was done".

Racicot told POLITICO she connected with Platner on the dating app Bumble in 2019 and had consensual relations with him prior to the night he allegedly assaulted her.

That night in late 2021, she said she had exchanged text messages with him and told him not to come over, saying she wasn’t in the mood for company. Later that evening, she said she realized when she heard a sound on the stairs that he had let himself into her house, which was unlocked.

Platner came up the stairs, Racicot said, to where she was on a couch. He got on top of her and kept grabbing her, she said, while she repeatedly told him to stop and that she wasn’t interested. Racicot said she smelled alcohol on his breath and believed he was “almost blackout drunk” because Platner ignored her protests and continued to grab her after knocking over an antique sewing kit, spilling small needles everywhere.

“And, the look on his face and realizing what was happening, I just realized that, like, I am in a situation where there’s no consent here,” she said.

Racicot said she tried to separate herself from Platner by telling him she couldn’t be in that room anymore, after which he followed her to her bedroom and had sex with her against her will. She said he also ejaculated inside of her despite her telling him not to, as she was not using birth control at the time.

She went to clean herself up, she said, and when she returned, Platner had fallen asleep. She contemplated waking him up to kick him out, but worried he could hurt someone driving in the state he was in.

The following morning, she said, Platner tried to put his arm around her and she pushed him away. She said she asked him whether he remembered what had happened the previous night; according to Racicot, Platner said he didn’t remember. Racicot said she told him to leave and never contact her again.

That's a whole lot of "it was non-consensual but I didn't do nothing about it" going on there. At this stage it's pure "he said/she said" and rests on "could it have happened like that? yes. did it happen like that? who knows?"

Is this the same here and gone?

This woman made a few bad choices(having a previous hookup with platner). Then afterwards he invited himself over and she told him not to come. She unwisely didnt lock the door so he just let himself in. Then she told him to stop while he grabbed her and tried to mount her. If that’s not rape, what is?

Oh, hydro, there are a lot of legal definitions of what exactly is and isn't rape, and judges make comments about it.

I'm now sufficiently burned on "oh wow hey just so happens that at precisely the right moment to help us get rid of this guy we hate, someone comes forward with an accusation of sexual assault that conveniently has no witnesses to support or, for our purposes, prove it never happened, gosh what are the chances, eh?" stories of this kind to be very dubious.

Lack of consent is not in itself rape. Suppose it hadn't been Platner walking in her front door. Would she have fought that guy off, called the cops, tried to get help? Because the story can be interpreted to be "she kinda would have gone along if he'd been sober, but because he wasn't, she just shrugged and let him get some so he'd go away in the morning". There's nothing there about "and I tried fighting him off, and when I got into my bedroom I locked the door but he broke in, and I tried calling for help but he grabbed my phone" etc. in the story.

Could have been rape. Could have been choice she later regretted. Could be "I don't want this guy in office, so here's my story". Could be a lot of things. I don't like Platner, but this isn't enough in the story to say "yep definitely rape rather than dubious consent". A lot of women (and men too, I guess) have sex out of a sense of duty or obligation, that doesn't make it rape.

A lot of women (and men too, I guess) have sex out of a sense of duty or obligation, that doesn't make it rape.

I don't think a lot of men really have much experience with this. Furthermore, I believe that according to human instinct[0] having to do this disqualifies you from being a man[1]. (Which is also why most human societies, bar the ones over the last 100 years, have this baked into their understanding of male homosexual activity, regardless of whether or not they actively prosecuted it.)

That knowledge gap creates some significant problems, though, since you have to guess as to how bad the problem actually is. So you can't tell nearly as well if the opposite side/sex is bullshitting you, and if you default to "just Believe Them" for a few generations, you get this situation, where normal relationship dynamics have effectively become rape (or can become rape arbitrarily), especially in the marginal case (like this one) where that duty/obligation is all that's left in the relationship.

It's understandable that, if this state of affairs is broken to the point it's getting in the way of other political goals, the "side" that gained a sociopolitical advantage from normal relationship dynamics being rape (whose candidate it ostensibly is) would start pulling away from the polemic and towards nuance/reality. The principled ones break first.

[0] Generalizes to 'being taken advantage of', but this is specifically why Samuel Jackson's character says those things in the first place. Bitches are by definition female (shorthand for "obligated/subordinate"- not a prescription), which is why calling a man one in this context can even be a bad thing in the first place.

[1] And is part of why men in that position don't usually like talking about it if and when it should happen to them. (And if it involves a woman, why the response is some variation of "nice" or "how'd you con her into it?", and in either case is followed by disbelief should the man complain about being turned into the obligated/subordinate partner. In conventional relationships other men will mock the complainant by making whip-cracking sounds.)

"oh wow hey just so happens that at precisely the right moment to help us get rid of this guy we hate,

My understanding is that the "right moment" for Platner's political enemies would have been after it was too late for him to drop out and a replacement candidate to run, right? In which case this is only the right moment for Platner's political allies (although you might fairly object that Platner may have enemies inside the Democratic party), and their interest in pushing the story would be to get him to drop out before the story surfaces at the "right" moment.

Or am I wrong on the timeline, or is there inside baseball that I am missing?

I was thinking enemies inside the party. Collins and the Republicans probably don't care so long as he goes, and the second choice is a squishier Dem they can beat.

I could buy this, but I don't know enough inside baseball to speculate on who would count as his co-party rivals. Do you?

No, different articles claim different people might step up or be nominated (e.g. I've seen suggestions that Janet Mills, who previously withdrew from the race, might be persuaded back).

The thing is, can a different Democrat win? Who will they pick?

Traders at prediction markets think it is very likely that Platner will drop out. As of Monday evening, they give Platner just a 3 percent chance of being the next U.S. Senator from Maine. After Collins, at 37 percent, the next-most-likely election winner is Troy Jackson, at 34 percent. (Jackson, a progressive Democrat, came in third in Maine’s recent gubernatorial primary.) Under Maine law, Platner has until next Monday (July 13) at 5 p.m. to withdraw from the race. The Maine Democratic Party would then have two weeks (until July 27) to replace him with a new nominee.

The comments section on the most recent post over at Silver Bulletin is interesting, because there's a range of people on there saying "I'm from Maine and I think they should pick Jackson/No, he's got baggage too! Pick Shah!/They need to pick someone from the left/No, they need to pick a moderate/Mills now has a great chance/Mills was hopeless, that's why she dropped out". I have no idea who they'll select out of all that.

My guess is "people who want to win". Knowing or plausibly worrying that there was worse yet to come makes this a rational call from the rest of the party if they want to take the Senate. It could be some kind of Establishment vs DSA war, but there are more extreme standard-bearers for the DSA side, and most of the Establishment seemed willing to support him four days ago. Maybe his white maleness meant that he was the only leftist candidate who was susceptible to shivving, which would be hilarious.

If this woman is telling the truth, then it was rape- she said no(in fact told him that before she showed up at her house) and never changed her mind. I would certainly be willing to believe that she's lying, but it seems a lot more likely that her story- she was agonizing about telling someone because she supports him politically(she does seem to legitimately be a progressive democrat), eventually told NYT, they tried to sit on it, but then it leaked- to be true.

She didn't fight him off because she couldn't, she was scared, etc. That does not equal consent. She straight up told him no.

That does not equal consent. She straight up told him no.

Yeah, but it's much more dubious consent than rape, if I go by the report. She got away from him but didn't run out the door or lock the bedroom door or phone someone to come get him/come get her. Now maybe there will be a fuller account and more details, but the preliminary story is he was drunk and there's no mention of "he broke down the door" or "he grabbed me before I could get away".

Lack of consent is not in itself rape.

I mean definitionally it is:

The revised UCR definition of rape is: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

That doesn't mean this story is true of course. But having sex with someone without their consent is rape. Whether they fight back or freeze or do nothing.

If she consents to having sex with Platner no matter how grudgingly then it isn't rape of course, you are correct there. But then there is consent. Lack of consent is exactly what turns sex into rape.

without the consent of the victim.

I think HereandGone is implying a sort of tacit consent. I don't consent to my cat laying me and clawing at my belly... but I don't do much more than call him an asshole and then scratch his ears. I've personally been on the receiving end of similar sexual behavior, and calling it rape feels like it seriously devalues the concept. I was not "forced against my will", I was "annoyed by a drunk wife until I decided that getting her off was the quickest path to getting back to sleep".

I think consent exists on a sliding scale. At a value of zero, escaping the situation is the whole of your utility function, and you would happily order a nuclear strike at your location if you could, evaporating the perpetrator, yourself and millions of bystanders in the process.

At a value of 1, you are enthusiastic about the sex (but likely not to the point where it dominates your utility function, because that rarely happens).

Between these two extremes there is a lot of road, and at some point we put up a road sign labeled "rape" -- which is perfectly reasonable.

In the absence of other complications like diminished ability to consent (e.g. due to age or drugs), obvious coercion or pre-arrangements (like CNC or agreeing to wake-up sex), the line we draw is typically verbal (though voluntary actions may reinforce or negate verbally stated preferences).

If the alleged victim is saying "no" (and not contradicting that by undressing himself or his partner) as the sex begins, that is rape. If his last words before sex begins are "okay, let's just get this over with", that is verbal consent (even if he had said "no" before), ergo not rape. If he says nothing, the person initiating the sex better have a convincing story how based on past encounters or nonverbal signals.

We generally do not require rape victims to make a credible attempt to kill the perp or themselves to escape the situation. "She did not even try to choke to death on her own tongue, so she was likely enjoying it" is not a defense which is very successful. OTOH, violently resisting will typically leave forensic evidence which can be helpful in situations where verbal consent is in dispute.

I will grant you that it is entirely possible that he was simply pleading with her until he got some reluctant consent, which would make this not rape. But the fact that she did not call the cops when he fell asleep is not sufficient.

Obviously there is a lot of road between "not rape" and "enthusiastic consent", and most of us have walked parts of that road at some point. Relationships take compromise, both with regard to what movies to watch and what sexual activities to engage in, and when. Monogamous relationships even more, because alternatives are constrained.

Still, showing up drunk at the home of a previous hookup when she told you not to do so and beg for sex is rather close to the "(barely) not rape" end of the spectrum.

This is a good breakdown. If the story is true, what he did isn't good or acceptable, and may well deserve to be called rape. But at the same time, it's qualitatively different from snatching a woman off a running trail and having his way with her while she cries and begs him to stop.

For the cat example, you have technically been assaulted no (assuming we held cats to human standards at least for the analogy to hold)? Someone else who likes cats less could throw your cat across the room in self defense. The fact you don't take it seriously is your prerogative, but in a human to human scenario that would be assault (or battery or whatever). If a man walks up to you and scratches your stomach with sharp fingernails, I assume you are not going to be as sanguine (though, hey what do I know, maybe that would float your boat!)

For the wife example, however grudgingly you did indeed consent. So that's not the same as "lack of consent"

Lack of consent is the literal difference between rape and not rape. If she does indeed grudgingly consent to Platner then it is not rape I agree. If she doesn't consent at all then it doesn't matter what other actions she takes, it is rape.

After 5 years and with presumably no evidence it might not be prosecutable or provable beyond a reasonable doubt of course, either way.

For the wife example, however grudgingly you did indeed consent. So that's not the same as "lack of consent"

I think this is the line being discussed. HereandGone is interpreting her actions as being closer to "begrudging consent". The problem with

Lack of consent is the literal difference between rape and not rape.

is that, particularly among people who have an existing, ongoing sexual relationship, that line can get blurry.

But in this case she was saying no multiple times and was physically forced into it- assuming her story is accurate. That’s a pretty textbook definition of lack of consent.

It can! But the statement wasn't about why he may have assumed he had consent or similar. Her statement was that lack of consent does not make rape. Not that the line was blurry, or that he may have assumed consent, or that it wasn't communicated well or anything of the sort.

The literal difference between rape and not rape is the lack of consent. The line might get blurry as to whether she did consent, I agree. But if she did not it is rape.

If she just meant the line is blurry then her choice of wording was poor indeed.

More comments

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