site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18171 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 20, 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.

gang raping a child

From the article:

Investigators say the two men had sex in January 2022 with an underage female who had run away from her foster care placement. Court documents state when the victim was examined by a nurse, she was sleep deprived, dehydrated, and had nothing to eat recently.

This reads more to me like men having consensual sex with a runaway teenager (in exchange for housing and drugs?), not gang rape. Still should be clearly worse from a legal standpoint than saying the n-word, but gang rape seems like it obscures more than it describes.

Given how quickly the same elements would claim rape in equivalent-or-more coercive situations in other contexts, I think it's reasonable here.

A runaway teen that they didn't feed or allow to sleep? Uh, hate to break it too you, but that's kinda a shitty way to treat someone for being a consensual sex partner. It sounds a lot more likely that she ran away and then they took her home and abused her. I have no doubt that she expected to have to sleep with him for housing and food, but it sounds like her treatment was unusually poor even by the low standards of minors trading sex for housing in a trailer park.

Should they be called Pedophiles, then, if one wanted to use technical terms that veer towards the misleading?

A minor whom they did not bother giving food or water? Yeah, that sounds to me more like "sex slave" than "consensual sex with two adults where nobody was coerced and there were no strings attached".

Can't believe I'm turning into "to the right of Attila the Hun" when it comes to recent court cases cited on here, but it's something I really would like to know the fine details of why these charges were dropped in "the interests of justice". Probably because "well we can't prove that she didn't consent to fucking the two adult men, after all she did agree to go home with the first guy":

Sharmake Beyle Omar, 29, and Mohamed Hussein Omer, 41, are both facing felony charges of third- and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct in Olmsted County District Court.

Both men are accused of raping and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old female in a Rochester trailer home.

According to their criminal complaints:

The juvenile told a man who she had previously been in foster care with that she had been sexually assaulted multiple times by Omar and Omer over the course of two days in Rochester. The man reported the assaults to the Rochester Police Department shortly after taking the juvenile to Children's Minnesota Hospital in Minneapolis for a sexual assault nurse examination.

The man reported that the juvenile called him Jan. 20, 2022, and asked him to pick her up at a gas station.

The juvenile told the man she had run away from her foster home in Farmington and had hitched rides heading south until she met Omer at a gas station where he offered to let her stay at his Rochester residence.

During that time period, there was a call for service at the gas station involving the juvenile as a missing person. When officers arrived at the gas station, she was gone.

Once the juvenile arrived at the trailer home, both men raped and sexually assaulted the teenager, the juvenile told an investigator with RPD.

Omer had tried to ply the juvenile with alcohol before asking the teenager to perform sexual acts saying that "she needed to take care of him because he was taking care of her."

Omar arrived a short while later, and the juvenile was told by Omer to "take care of" Omar since Omer was doing things for her.

Both men were identified by the juvenile in a photo line up.

During a search warrant, law enforcement found the juvenile's glasses in one of the men's vehicles and a towel at the Rochester residence that had been used by the juvenile.

Along with the sexual trauma, the juvenile reported she had foot pain because she left the trailer in rain boots that did not fit because the men took her shoes so she could not run away.

This has nothing to do with calling people "niggers", by the way, and a grown woman who yells insults like that at a child should be getting disciplined for that.

Oddly, she wasn't convicted for yelling at the kid, presumably because the fighting words doctrine would be especially inapt there.

"Consensual" sex with a teenager is still statutory rape. Two men committing statutory rape with a teenager is gang rape. Statutory gang rape, if you will.

Per google, age of consent in Minnesota is 16.

The actual statute says the same thing (16, or 14 with a Romeo-and-Juliet span of three years).

Gang rape is a vernacular term, not a legal term. And no one thinks of "gang rape" as anything except a bunch of men violently raping a woman.

It's particularly relevant here, because people are wondering how anyone would let gang rapists off. The answer is that it would be a hard case, with an unreliable witness who might not even show up, for a statutory rape charge. It's not a case where there is a group of men waiting in the park at dusk who grabbed a random jogger.

None of this is me nominating the guy for man of the year, or even saying he shouldn't be punished: he should. But police and the criminal justice system are underfunded, and officials need to triage for where they're likely to get wins.

And no one thinks of "gang rape" as anything except a bunch of men violently raping a woman.

Or a group of men plying a woman with drink and drugs, then raping her after she passes out. And you were the one suggesting she might have agreed to have sex with them in exchange for drugs.

Ahh yes - the consensual sex with foster care escapee, before she is fed and hydrated. Because that is how women work.

A foster care escapee is almost certainly well aware of the strings attached to a grown man willing to take her in- but if they didn't feed her and took her shoes away so she couldn't leave, well, this is the kind of thing that statutory rape charges exist to be filed over.

Plus after taking her shoes away so she can't run off. This is what every consensual sexual encounter is like, right?

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