site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24255 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.

I am becoming more and more of a single issue “voter” on the topic of gerontocracy. In quotes because there is no party in the United States that is not actively trying to grow it and give more money to old people at the expense of the young.

In New York there is something called STAR tax relief for homeowners. Households making less than 500k/year get a yearly check that serves as relief for school taxes you pay as a homeowner. If you are over 65, you are a special citizen who gets extra money (means tested at 110k/year, but there’s no such extra relief for younger people who make less than 110k, and yearly income is not really as relevant for older people who don’t need to save for retirement, have probably already raised kids or don’t have any, probably have paid off a mortgage, don’t need to save for a kids college fund, have likely already accrued wealth such that income is effectively meaningless, I could go on). Why? Why do these people get extra money at my expense? It’s supremely unjust and makes no rational sense, other than pandering to a large voting bloc. Pure politics that flies totally under the radar. And our entire society is riddled with handouts like this. Combine this with falling birth rates, higher life expectancy, etc. I feel like a good 70-80% of economic malaise and existential issues facing America could be resolved or greatly ameliorated by just cutting this shit entirely.

Of course it makes sense, boomers are a massive cohort and old people have most of the wealth, and they vote. And for some reason young people seem completely oblivious as to how much of their taxes flow to the old, and suggesting you redistribute this somewhat triggers empathy and accusations of killing your sweet grandma. In some ways this issue is much harder to actively build a coalition around because almost all of us have elderly relatives around and we all expect to one day be in their position and wouldn’t it be nice to retire and have the government pay for everything when we do?

And for some reason young people seem completely oblivious as to how much of their taxes flow to the old, and suggesting you redistribute this somewhat triggers empathy and accusations of killing your sweet grandma.

People are irrational about it (mostly in the sense of being unaware that a mass-affluent elderly upper-middle class is very much a new thing) and old people are going to be the beneficiaries of a ton of idiotic slopulism as the median age marches ever higher, but boomer (and soon to be Gen X) luxury communism is an indirect subsidy to the working age who would otherwise be expected to care for/house their elderly/infirm relatives, an especially acute problem in an era of inverted population pyramids and increased lifespans. Imagine being an only child to parents who had you fairly old and both wind up dying of drawn out illnesses (This gets really fun if they're divorced and don't live near each other.) It would be hard to be a net loser in such a scenario as a Joe or Jane 30 to 40-something average taxpayer if the government is picking up the tab. Worse, while the old are collectively wealthy, that wealth is very unevenly distributed. For the under through lower-middle class Social Security/Medicare/Disability are the only reason most get to retire and maintain the polite fiction of being financially independent. For the upper-middle class, boomer luxury communism is a direct subsidy to expected inheritances.

Unfortunately, the expectation should be ever greater political pressure to increase welfare directed at the old.

older people who don’t need to save for retirement, have probably already raised kids or don’t have any, probably have paid off a mortgage, don’t need to save for a kids college fund, have likely already accrued wealth such that income is effectively meaningless, I could go on

Parents are increasingly bailing out adult children who need loans, help after divorce, paying off student debts, can't afford rent, etc. If they have families, it's likely they're still contributing financially even after the kids have left the nest. It's not all "whoo-hoo, now we're seventy, we can live the high life!"

suggesting you redistribute this somewhat triggers empathy and accusations of killing your sweet grandma.

I despise such an emotionally manipulative accusation. The social contract used to be that after your parents took care of you when you grew up, you would take care of them in their old age. I don't need to pay more taxes for grandma to be taken care of. Rather, my taxes end up going to people who have absolutely no relation to me and don't even pretend to vote in my interests. This breakdown in the social contract correlates with attacks on traditional family structures and contributes to an atomized, isolating society. It feels like we broke something that was working perfectly fine, and now we're trying to fix it with band-aids.

The social contract used to be that after your parents took care of you when you grew up, you would take care of them in their old age.

The social contract used to be that in the improbable case that your parents live into so decrepit old age when they are unable to work any more, they will spend at most few months in such state until they are carried away by some respiratory illness.

"Elder care" when rotting zombies are kept alive for decades is product of scientific and technological modernity, absolutely nothing "trad" about it.

The social contract existed because children started working in the field at 8, granpa died 10 years younger and you all lived in the same house. It broke because there are things that we like more, like having technology, mass scholarization, living longer and moving out.

It feels like we broke something that was working perfectly fine, and now we're trying to fix it with band-aids.

Low fertility and increased lifespan probably would've broken it on its own. Mass divorce and familial dysfunction just poured salt on the wound, transforming "part of life" into a potentially Sisyphean burden. What happens when it's not "sweet grandma" but a malingering, toxic trainwreck that the children have spent years doing their best to avoid?

I have the misfortune of seeing this within my own family.

You’re right that there is no easy solution, given that lifespans have never been this long we have zero idea as a species how to handle this state of affairs where people can be massive drains on society at large from the age of 65-95 (or longer)

Yes. We socialised the obligation to care for aging parents - and did so almost completely, whereas we only socialised a small part of the obligation to raise your own children. (Interesting question - why?) With hindsight, this was a mistake.

The "why" is relatively simple. "Old" at the time of Medicare's passing meant the Lost Generation, which was A. generally quite poor thanks to having spent their prime earning years in the Great Depression and B. didn't live all that long (My great grandfather of that generation died at the age of 70. His son, my grandfather, lived to see 86.).

Meanwhile, aside from free public education (which is in fact a large socialization of childrearing, albeit one done for the purpose of producing productive adults) I don't think childcare was something specifically on the radar at the time (as opposed to poverty in general) in large part because the standards of childrearing were quite a bit lower at the time (Another interesting question: Which has been subject to more expectation inflation? Parenting or eldercare?).

In the long term, this has become a problem due to demographics, inflation of expectations (in terms of Social Security benefits, but most acutely healthcare expenditures), and the emergence of a mass affluent upper-middle class of elderly capable of lobbying on its own behalf that arguably didn't exist before, say, the Silent Generation's retirement.

I don't think childcare was something specifically on the radar at the time (as opposed to poverty in general)

Socialising the cost of childrearing doesn't imply government-provided childcare. (I consider government pensions to be part of the process of socialising the cost of supporting the elderly). After WW2, when we were not a gerontocracy, a number of countries partially socialised the cost of childrearing by introducing non-means-tested cash payments to mothers of children. These have mostly withered on the vine in favour of payments to the elderly or more targetted subsidies for bastards and babymamas who were otherwise at risk of extreme poverty.

Because universal early childcare is a fiendishly difficult math problem.

Universal eldercare is an even harder problem, but every advanced country claims they are going to solve 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