site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8693 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This discourse gives a lot of "people talking about sex instead of having it" vibes. Even married couples have dry, unenthusiastic sex often. One person is interested, the other isn't. But they'd just do it and be done with it rather than say no and start an argument. Terminally online people who lack the life experience to understand that awkward, iffy, or straight up unsatisfying sexual encounters are a normal, common part of adult life for most people.

The last wave of allegations against Platner purported that he messaged women while being married and used the Kik app, dubbed the "predator paradise". The insinuation was that he may have traded or soilicited child pornography without directly saying something defamatory. It's interesting to see the MeToo language come crawling back and it's the same arguments we've heard before: "women don't lie about such things". Maybe true 20 years ago, but not in the digital age.

But she did say no. Literally, multiple times.

I feel like I’ve fallen into bizarro world. People are bending over backwards to defend this guy, and it’s not even our usual mysogynists.

Ctrl + F "sloot" and "erwgv3g34" getting zero results is the plot twist of the century for this one

I can’t believe we’re on the same page against here and gone on the definition of rape.

To be clear- I believe women, even sexually active women, are perfectly capable of refusing consent, and that verbal statements that they are doing so should be taken at face value.

The story, what we've got so far, sounds much more like "ugh, go away okay just let him get off then he'll go away" than "help, help, I'm being raped, somebody help!"

That she left the front door unlocked after texting him "no, not tonight" is more like "well if he does come over and if he does convince me to do it" than "I'm done for the night, just gonna lie here and scroll on my phone".

Is there any sign Platner did chase underage women? All the ones mentioned so far seem to be adults, is this just more "any stick will do to beat the dog" in order to get rid of the undesirable?

Ok, but this isn't dry, unenthusiastic sex. This is just straight up rape. She told him no and he persisted anyway. That's the central example of rape. The only issue is whether she is telling the truth and I'm inclined to believe her absent any convincing argument otherwise.

I'll reply to you and @hydroacetylene here.

The "no" sounds more like reluctance and unenthusiasm leading to (as @HereAndGone2 puts it) "ugh, go away okay just let him get off then he'll go away". Yes, a sober enthusiastic "yes" (implied or explicitly stated) is the best marker for consent, and no-means-no is a reliable metric for SA. But it's fuzzy and not 100% perfect, awkward sexual encounters and "I said no/I was drunk but we fucked anyway" seemed to be the recurring theme of many MeToo stories. Technically could qualify as rape, but this depends entirely on what this person was feeling at the time.

Well, we allegedly got "She texted him that she needed her ass massaged but we kept that out of the story", so yeah: "And it was a night where him and I were texting back and forth and he had taken something that I said as as an invitation and that's not how I meant it."

Before publication, a Politico reporter told the Platner campaign that Jenny Racicot, on the night in question, had been “texting [Platner] about needing her glute massaged.” The reporter added, “That detail didn’t make our story.”

Blurred lines, indeed.

Her: "Man, my lower half hurts after I did something strenuous. I could use a glute massage!"

Him: "Literal booty call, I'll be there in a jiffy!"

If she gave consent over text, then he drove there and she said no, it’s still rape. Acceptable recourse for being led on was to (for example) break up with her.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills- be entered her house uninvited and forced himself on her while she was saying no multiple times. In what universe is that ‘unenthusiasm’ rather than ‘actual rape’? Literally, what would qualify as rape to the people defending this behavior as ‘eh, hookup culture gets messy’?

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