site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8736 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 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.

Surrogacy arrangements are one of those things where yes, if you go into it with consenting, emotionally stable adults who all clearly agree on the terms, then it's hard to articulate a reason against it.

"It's morally wrong to sell people" doesn't sound so difficult. There are also some more complex arguments that boil down to "a child has a right to a mother and a father" that require some elaboration to cover the special cases, but they're not that hard to follow either.

But one problem is that emotionally stable adults are actually quite rare in my experience.

I don't think that's the issue. There's lots that are emotionally stable, the actual problem is the same that's people run into when discussing polyamory or prostitution:

  • Emotionally stable people are unlikely to do them
  • The acts themselves are emotionally destabilizing.

the actual problem is the same that's people run into when discussing polyamory or prostitution:

There's probably also the luxury belief issue: the people who promote the ideas are probably more stable than the average person who ends up doing them.

"It's morally wrong to sell people" doesn't sound so difficult.

Surrogacy needn't be a paid service. I actually know a gay guy (with a steady partner) who had a child with a platonic female friend of his, with the understanding that the child would primarily be raised by the two men, purely out of friendship. Not a typical case, of course - both due to the lack of a financial arrangement, and the fact that the mother is still very present in the child's life in practice - but clearly recognizable as surrogacy without actually involving anything that could be described as selling people.

Surrogacy needn't be a paid service.

  • Ok, but it overwhelmingly is, and
  • this is where the second argument comes in

and the fact that the mother is still very present in the child's life in practice - but clearly recognizable as surrogacy

Depending on what you mean by "very present" I might disagree about it being recognizable as surrogacy. Is she legally recognized as the child's mother? If not, then I don't think it meets the criteria.

Some time ago I ran into a "dating site" for people who specifically want to hook up for the purpose of having a kid (here's an American example. On the female side it was unsurprisingly full of "T: -10s" on the biological clock women, but what I found interesting (though obvious in retrospect) was that on the male side a good chunk was obviously gay guys. From what I could tell the end goal was both sides keeping rights to the kid, but they could use the site to negotiate how much either side wants to be involved. All in all I still find it pretty degenerate, but it's orders of magnitude superior to surrogacy.

"It's morally wrong to sell people" doesn't sound so difficult.

Is it morally wrong for MLB teams to sell and/or trade players too each other? Is it morally wrong for a temp agency to sell their workers to a factory?

Calling surrogacy "selling people" is technically correct, but obtuse. "Selling people" is understood to be bad for reasons like the people being sold don't have a say in the matter, they have less rights than others, there is typically violence or coercion involved. Its evocative of slavery or sex trafficking. The bad things that are inherent or understood to be inherent in slavery / trafficking don't really apply to surrogacy. Yeah there are surrogacy horror stories like in OP, but the modal surrogacy case by far doesn't look like OP and there is not reason it should.

Is it morally wrong for MLB teams to sell and/or trade players too each other? Is it morally wrong for a temp agency to sell their workers to a factory?

I don't think that's remotely comparable. You are talking about an employment contract, the fact that you think this can be placed in the same category as motherhood is already morally repugnant to me. But even if you think consent is the only valid moral factor, these contracts were entered into voluntarily, and the player / worker can refuse to be "sold".

"Selling people" is understood to be bad for reasons like the people being sold don't have a say in the matter

Like the children...

they have less rights than others

like the children...

there is typically violence or coercion involved.

the only reason it doesn't is that the child is too weak to put up any kind of violent resistance. Also the mothers' material situation is often taken advantage of, which may be on the softer side of coercion, but it still plausibly fits in the same category.

The bad things that are inherent or understood to be inherent in slavery / trafficking don't really apply to surrogacy.

They absolutely do. Slavery is not considered abhorrent because the masters always and everywhere mistreat their slaves, in fact "but we always treat aware slaves with kindness" was a staple pro-slavery argument back in the day, and it was rejected because treating people as ownable and sellable was considered immoral. That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.

I don't think that's remotely comparable. You are talking about an employment contract, the fact that you think this can be placed in the same category as motherhood is already morally repugnant to me.

I know its not remotely comparable, that's why I said lumping them all together as "selling people" was obtuse. Selling slaves and surrogacy for money and MLB trades can all be described as "selling people", that those things are not (morally) comparable is my point. Because these "selling people" scenarios have wildly different moral valences "It's morally wrong to sell people" obviously has a little bit of nuance to it.

But even if you think consent is the only valid moral factor, these contracts were entered into voluntarily, and the player / worker can refuse to be "sold".

First thing is that's not even true, a MLB player can be sold against his will to another team. It happens all the time, and it not possible for him to refuse.

Second is that in both the particular surrogacy in question and the practice at large are also contracts entered into voluntarily. If you are going to argue that the baby gets a say - no, it doesn't. Does a baby get a say on if it is adopted? No. Has any baby ever had a say as to if or when or how they are born? No. Its never been the case, so why is it here?

"Selling people" is understood to be bad for reasons like the people being sold don't have a say in the matter

Like the children...

Ok this one by me was maybe not precise, but I have a feeling you get the gist of what I am saying. I am referring to something like Kunta Kinte being shipped off to the deep south against his will, people generally think that is mean and bad. Given that no newborn child at any point in history has ever had a say in any matter I hoped that you realized that I was referring to something like Kunta instead of something unremarkable and due to the inherent nature of newborns.

they have less rights than others

like the children...

I am going to assume you weren't talking about the fact that children and adults have different rights because that's not remarkable or the point of contention here.

What right does a non surrogate child have that a surrogate child does not? The right to a mother? Baby has a mother. How could it be born if it didn't have a mother? That it is adopted by two gay men, one being the father, does not strike the mother from existence.

there is typically violence or coercion involved.

the only reason it doesn't is that the child is too weak to put up any kind of violent resistance.

Really? I don't believe you. You couldn't possibly know this, its not falsifiable, did a baby tell you this? No, you just made it up.

Also the mothers' material situation is often taken advantage of, which may be on the softer side of coercion, but it still plausibly fits in the same category.

  1. The woman in question is not the babies mother. The egg was not hers, it was a donor's.
  2. The woman in question was not coerced or pressured into surrogacy, per the article in Canada surrogates are not allowed to be paid anything beyond costs for their surrogacy.
  3. You are making a fully general argument here - anyone can be coerced about anything, you can argue against anything by saying that "oh someone's martial situation could be taken advantage of here so its coercive"

They absolutely do. Slavery is not considered abhorrent because the masters always and everywhere mistreat their slaves, in fact "but we always treat aware slaves with kindness" was a staple pro-slavery argument back in the day, and it was rejected because treating people as ownable and sellable was considered immoral. That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.

The surrogate was not any given money for the kid. Per the article she was not even given money for the costs she incurred.

The parents don't own the kid beyond the extent every parent or guardian "owns" their kid. One of them is the actual father! Its his kid!

If that argument applies to surrogacy 1:1 then why doesn't it here?

it was rejected because treating people as ownable and sellable was considered immoral. That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.

Only if the mother is the only "owner" no? If the father donated sperm then it's not selling the baby from one owner to a new one, the father is already the (part) "owner". Where it's a donated egg and sperm even more so as the surrogate is not the owner at all. It's essentially just renting space in the womb.

So it's definitely not 1:1 as an argument.

Only if the mother is the only "owner" no?

So it's definitely not 1:1 as an argument.

You too have it backwards. Slavery wasn't declared wrong because we decided that somewhere, along the way, ownership was misattributed, otherwise you'd still be allowed to sell yourself into slavery. It was decided that ownership of people is invalid in it's entirety, you can't do it at all.

If you could own another person, and if a mother owned her child, then she could sell, and there would be no issue with surrogacy to begin with.

If the father donated sperm then it's not selling the baby from one owner to a new one, the father is already the (part) "owner".

The father has every right to the custody of the child as well, he does not have a right to buy out the mother from her part. He especially does not have a right to commission the creation and birth of a child for the specific purpose of buying out the mother's custody right.

Where it's a donated egg and sperm even more so as the surrogate is not the owner at all. It's essentially just renting space in the womb.

The process of birth creates a bond between the mother and child, and the idea you can ignore that and act like it's possible to "rent space in the womb" is morally insane.

The process of birth creates a bond between the mother and child, and the idea you can ignore that and act like it's possible to "rent space in the womb" is morally insane.

It is not.

What is asserted without argument may be dismissed without argument.

Under which moral framework? Why? You're just throwing boo words out without actually justifying your position.

You might be right! But you can't just claim your opponents are insane and expect people to nod.

And that is why I was using quotes for owner. The mother is not the actual owner, but whether we call it ownership or not parents have huge ability to decide what should happen to their children up to and including having other people raise them and abdicating their parental rights entirely. Every day parents give their kids up for adoption. It is clear whatever bond there may be is not inviolable.

So a man can indeed have a child with a woman with the idea that he alone will raise him and vice versa. That follows from a chain of logic. Parents can give up custody. They can give up custody before birth. They can give up custody after birth. They can abandon their family entirely.

If I want a child and find a woman who is willing to let me have sex with her on the proviso that I will take and raise the child and she wants nothing to do with it, that can happen right now with no money changing hands. She can sign away her parental rights, leaving me in sole custody. She has the right to do so. I have the right to do so.

So is it just the money that makes it morally insane? Can you at least detail your belief system a little more here?

It is not.

Ok man, have fun advocating for reducing penalties for rape to those for unpaid rent.

What is asserted without argument may be dismissed without argument.

Under which moral framework? Why? You're just throwing boo words out without actually justifying your position.

Sorry mate, I'm not playing with people who only do skepticism. Show me your moral framework, and I'll show you mine.

Come on buddy, you're better than that. I said right below that you might even be right but you have to at least make the argument, instead of just calling people who disagree with you morally insane. Under which moral framework? Why?

Just calling something you disagree with morally insane on a discussion forum where people with all sorts of different values and frameworks are supposed to co-exist is just not very helpful. You might think it is morally insane but clearly there are people who do not. So at least state your case, otherwise you might as well have not replied at all. You might as well just downvote and move on at that point.

I already gave you a hint for what rejecting that thesis would entail, which should be a clear enough "why".

Anyway,like I said, I didn't do conversations on moral philosophy with people who only do pure criticism. You can't get an ought from an is, so any moral position can infinitely poked at, when your own is carefully hidden away so that it can't be criticized. Conversations about morality only make sense when they're comparative.

More comments

Okay, but infants already have less rights than other people and don't have a say in much of anything, whether they are "sold" or not.

He's the one that tried telling me these criteria don't apply, I didn't rest my case on them. My case is that the child has a sacred bond with it's mother, that can only be broken in extreme circumstances, which "here's some heckin' dolarinoos" doesn't clear.

That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.

Perhaps in the world before, when children were factual property of the head of the house. Today, as some lament, we do not own our children.

You have it backwards. If children were property of the parents, there could be no objection to surrogacy, because you can sell your property.

How do you define surrogacy as selling children if at no point does the child become the new parent's property?

What? My entire objection to surrogacy is that it does, in fact, make children into property. It's the only way surrogacy is even possible.

Property is something you can own.

Parents (including adoptive parents, or legal guardians) do not own their children.

It is possible to own a person extralegally (such as through enslavement by human trafficking), but this is not an inherent part of surrogacy.

Thus I figure surrogacy does not make children into property. Not any more than being able to waive parental rights does.

Property is something you can own.

Parents (including adoptive parents, or legal guardians) do not own their children.

What's your definition of "own"? If it's something like "I can do whatever I want with it", than a lot of things we typically think of as property don't actually clear that criterion. I'm mostly focusing the title being freely transferable. The reason adoptive parents, in theory, don't own the children, is because adoption-in-theory happens when the child loses it's parents, or they become unable to fulfill their duties, in tragic circumstances, and they were picked to assume the duties of the parents. There's (in theory) no open market for legal guardianship. This is often not the case with adoption-in-practice, which isn't necessarily any better than surrogacy.

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