site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18176 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 10, 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.

Popping the filter bubble and the sanctity of life.

This Tuesday I was presented with a piece of Trivia that brought me up short.

More people are killed each year by doctors in Canada than are killed by gun violence in the US.

My initial reaction was to quite literally exclaim "bullshit!" but having looked into it, there does appear to be a case. According to the Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada (which is currently the most recent report available) Canadian doctors euthanized 16,499 individuals in 2024, an increase of 7.5% over the 15,343 euthanized in 2023. Meanwhile The Trace a website maintained by the Gun Control advocacy organization Everytown USA maintains that there were 14,651 instances of Homicide by Gunshot in 2025. While this number does not include self-inflicted gunshots (IE Suicides) it does include an estimated 1,200 cases where the shooting was likely justified (IE suspects being shot by police or by would-be victims) and at least 2 instances of execution by firing squad.

Upon review of those numbers and their associated trend-lines where instances of euthanasia in Canada have increased with each consecutive year since it was legalized, while homicide in the US has been trending downward for the last 5 years from it's Pandemic-era peak it actually seems likely to me that more people are killed by doctors in Canada than are killed by guns in the US. Not "per capita" but by raw quantity (16 thousand people and change versus 14 thousand and change).

Considering the above in the context of another story that came across my feed a couple weeks ago. A Ghoulish Proposal Gets a Prestige Endorsement, it seems to me that there is a concerted effort on the part of certain factions to commodify and devalue Human life. See this story from the New York Times last year Organ Donors are too Rare we Need a New Definition of Death. I expect the media to assure me that that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy announcing that the Network for Hope (an organ procurement non-profit serving Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) having had their certification revoked on the basis of credible claims that many donors were not legally dead at the time their organs were harvested is completely unrelated.

On a slightly different track, back when Harris was running for president there was this "ridiculous claim" that the Left wanted to legalize Abortion up to the moment of crowning, but just this Monday, Massachusetts became the 10th state in the union to do just that.

As in my prior "Popping filter bubbles" posts I don't feel like any of these things really warrant a post on their own, but when taken together they illustrate a trend, and I find myself lacking the vocabulary to describe my growing sense of unease with where this one seems to be going.

While this number does not include self-inflicted gunshots (IE Suicides)

And why the hell wouldn't we include those if we're speaking about medically assisted suicide? That makes no sense, the only answer is that otherwise the stats don't look like a headline.

Also, the Canadian number doesn't really rise eyebrows. That's roughly 5% of all deaths, a bit lower than Netherlands' number, a bit higher than Belgium. Both have stringent rules (terminal, suffering with no chance of improvement, voluntary and well considered, review committee affirms), so I'm not too worried about a healthcare system running quick and cheap cost optimization...

In all 3 countries the rate is rising quickly, which doesn't surprise me. I've already decided to take that route for a long list of possible future diagnosis, as have many of my family members. A growing part of society seems to have come up the same conclusion.

It's not medically assisted suicide. It's not like Kevorkian sets up the machine and then you push the button. The doctor just comes in a 10:45 as per your appointment, kills you, and then bills the taxpayer for 70$ per 15-minute unit.

Both have stringent rules (terminal, suffering with no chance of improvement, voluntary and well considered, review committee affirms), so I'm not too worried about a healthcare system running quick and cheap cost optimization...

Except as I noted in the subsequent links, the medical establishment is actively lobbying to do loosen those rules, and the DHHS is actively investigating Network for Hope for stripping patients for parts.

Don't all three countries have very regular horror stories about well known conscientious objectors being euthanized?

And why the hell wouldn't we include those if we're speaking about medically assisted suicide?

Very different things that sometimes fall under one label, at the end of the day. But it is a bit of gerrymandering to create an interesting stat, I'd agree.

In all 3 countries the rate is rising quickly

Depends on perspective. The Netherlands took 30 years for it to reach 5ish% of deaths, Canada took less than 10.

But it is a bit of gerrymandering to create an interesting stat, I'd agree.

It was quite literally a trivia question.

well i didn't mean you did the gerrymandering, it's fun trivia! Sparked an interesting conversation and lots of thought.

I'm not necessarily a fan of MAID as administered presently since I feel the particular construction is less efficient than just 'Let's not fund certain tilts at slightly delaying death' but I also think that society does definitely fight way too hard for every possible moment in the face of some issues.

I've already decided to take that route for a long list of possible future diagnosis, as have many of my family members.

I don't think I know a single person who would choose losing their memories and identity and becoming a drooling vegetable instead of a dignified death should they start to suffer from significant dementia etc.

It's a weird vision of dignity that considers MAID death dignified. If you went to garage and shot yourself, whatever your thoughts about the morality of suicide, at least you went out on your own terms. But with MAID (at least in Canada) you have to ask a grown-up for permission, and then they come and kill you and collect their fee. It's not messy, it's not as hard to watch as slow death from dementia, but it's not dignified in Nietzschean heroic Master morality sense. It might be dignified in some conceptions of slave-morality ("I asked permission and the authorities granted my request, but I didn't do it myself. I was a Good Boy") but all that slave morality is the stuff telling you not to do it in the first place.

It's a weird vision of dignity that suggests prioritizing what Nietzscheans will think is "going out on your own terms" while hiring a professional isn't. Suppose I value not having my family clean up my headless corpse more than I value the opinions of tough guys.

"You ask a grown-up for permission" - as if you don't do that every time you exchange money for goods and services.

I have no children, loved ones or friends who would take care of me when I can no longer look after myself, so I want a quick painless death when my health starts to irreversibly decline. Preferably by barbiturate overdose. Will an American doctor sell me that? Not likely.

Just kill yourself like a man. Don't get them to send you over the Rainbow Bridge like a pet.

If I could legally buy Veronal or other heavy downers I'd do that. But I won't do anything painful or messy, or that might hurt other people like jumping from a high place.

No children, loved ones or friends? Sounds like the exact demographic that gets euthanized because of depression long before their health starts to irreversibly decline.

Well, I might do it before that if the DSA gets in power and fucks up the economy, Salvador Allende-style. Or if the university library closes permanently.

You don’t even need to be a pro-life religious type to prefer being a drooling vegetable. The rationalists do things like measure the happiness of shrimp. To me it’s a simple question would I rather exists or disappear. The worst existence seems better than not being me.

Quite an intense assertion. Most people fold under torture, the suicide rate for people with (ex) chronic, splitting migraines is high enough that you can get FDA waivers for drug development. I've felt pain before that is, to me, obviously worth killing myself over if I have to feel it for the foreseeable future.

I don't think I know a single person who would choose losing their memories and identity and becoming a drooling vegetable instead of a dignified death should they start to suffer from significant dementia etc.

Hi, would you like to get to know me? This is a ridiculous claim, along the lines of "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon" or Scott Alexander's example of how he doesn't know any creationists. It's a very strong sign that you live in a filter bubble. I (and billions of others) believe human life inherently has value, and should not be intentionally ended outside of some very specific circumstances (i.e. self defense, capital punishment, etc.). Would a part of me prefer to die if I started declining into dementia? Of course, I saw my own grandpa suffer from Alzheimer's and become a shell of who he used to be, it's horrifying. But I will not take intentional steps to cause my own death there, let alone be such a massive mewling pussy that I make someone else kill me.

As a side note, I've always found statements like "dignified death" and "dying with dignity" concerning, because to me dignity has very little to do with what happens to me and far more to do with how I handle it. Once again, for billions of people, this is one of the most dignified moments in all of human history: https://www.artatberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/images/ARTatBerlin-Die-Kreuzigung-Christi-Hans-Baldung-Grien/ARTatBerlin-Die-Kreuzigung-Christi-Hans-Baldung-Grien-1869810459.jpg

I can tell your blood is up, but this claim isn't ridiculous. The majority of Americans support euthanasia.

I appreciate your bravery in potentially experiencing a drawn out, painful death that is "natural". But a few points:

  • This is an easier claim to make the younger you are
  • More people than you are affected (as you pointed out with your anecdote). I understand that you believe God is more important than your family, but not everyone subscribes to that.
  • Prolonging your life with expensive technology that other people pay for isn't natural either. We can't say pumping blood into a corpse is gross on one hand and then declare that being on a ventilator for 5 years is definitely the right way to die.

If one in twenty deaths in a country were caused by suicide or deaths of despair, that would be headline news. Somehow it's ho-hum when it's medically assisted suicide.

"That didn't happen and if it did, it's a good thing".

Symptom of a society that has solved many causes of early death. The reality on the ground in a hospice ward or a dementia care facility makes this number seem low. If you know any medical professionals, ask them what they'd do with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's or multiple myeloma.

There's no glory in a slow and painful death.

If you have hard data showing that the overwhelming majority of MAiD recipients are older people who've been diagnosed with terminal and/or degenerative conditions, I would love to see it.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2024.html

For track 1 requests (natural death reasonably foreseeable), which made up 95% of such requests, 86.5% of recipients were over 65. For track 2 requests (mental health/chronic conditions and the like), 78.4% of recipients were over 65.

For those who received MAID under Track 1, cancer was the most frequently cited medical condition (n=10,035), followed by "other" conditions (n=3,928), then cardiovascular conditions, such as congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation or vasculopathy (n=2,703). For Track 2, the most frequently indicated medical conditions were neurological conditions (n=378), "other" conditions (n=375) and cardiovascular conditions (n=94)

Thank you.

If you have hard data showing that the overwhelming majority of MAiD recipients are younger people in the prime of their life, I would love to see it.

That's not a claim I made.

Both have stringent rules (terminal, suffering with no chance of improvement

False, Canada's track 2 euthanasia is applicable to non-terminal cases, and next year it will be extended to purely mental health cases, unless it's delayed again (it was originally planned for 2024, but was delayed to 2027).

voluntary and well considered

Words on paper, there's no evidence that it's either, and the medical profession in general doesn't have a lot of credibility in this topic.

review committee affirms)

What is supposed to be the relevance of this?

False, Canada's track 2 euthanasia is applicable to non-terminal cases

I was talking about Netherlands/Belgium, but translated it badly. They require incurable instead of terminal.

voluntary and well considered

Again, in the non-Canadian case you have to voice the wish repeatedly, a month apart.

What is supposed to be the relevance of this?

Stops a single doctor from sending of people on his own, which is better than the alternative.

In the end, the question is if the process is any harder than just putting a gun into your mouth. I'd say it is, in all three countries.

They require incurable instead of terminal.

That's a big difference. Lots of fairly minor conditions are incurable.

Again, in the non-Canadian case you have to voice the wish repeatedly, a month apart.

First, I find the sudden switch to non-Canada to be a bit out of left field, wasn't the OP about Canada specifically? Why should we suddenly debate Belgium? Researching what's going on there is a fair bit more difficult given that they are non-English speaking countries.

Secondly, on paper this is also the case in Canada. In practice, they already took out someone who changed their mind and requested hospice care.

Stops a single doctor from sending of people on his own, which is better than the alternative.

This is only the case if the institution considers euthanasia as something to be avoided, if they think it's all fine, they'll be waving people through with bureaucratic indifference. Euthanasia is not an isolated case here, pro-trans people were insisting for years that there's rigorous diagnostic process, where there simply wasn't.

I find the sudden switch to non-Canada to be a bit out of left field, wasn't the OP about Canada specifically?

I mean this specific discussion thread started because I mentioned ~5% of all deaths being pretty normal for a western country with legalized assisted suicide. All I wanted to say is that they all have various schemes to regulate access, and they end up with similar rates. If Canada is frequently killing health people to safe money, so are the Euros.

In practice, they already took out someone who changed their mind and requested hospice care.

Criminal, if true.

In the end, suicide (for whatever reason) has always been something humans did. There's many arguments that making it to easy is unnecessarily increasing the number of successful attempt, but most of the time we don't care all that much. Decreasing the pack size of popular sleeping pills, closing the most popular bridges for foot traffic, psych tests for guns... All very inconvenient.

But the cleanest, most dignified path is worth arguing over? Just regulate it, regulate it better, and let people go if they really want to.

Criminal, if true.

Assuming @ArjinFerman is referring to the same story I am, the sequence of events went something like this. Mrs. Bennet discusses MAID with her Dr. and an assessment is performed but she ultimately decides that she doesn't want to go through with it and submits a request for in-patient hospice care. Mrs. Bennet subsequently takes a turn for the worse and falls into a coma at which point the Dr. "reassessed" her and then euthanized her on the basis of that reassessment. The Bennet family reportedly tried to take the doctor to court but never got anywhere because it had all been done legally and above-board.

You're appealing to "rules" and "processes" and "dignity" when a good chunk of my post is about how there is evidence that the rules and processes are not being followed while the medical establishment actively lobbies for their removal.

Are you referring to this? (Case 4b) https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MDRC-Report-2024.4_Same-Day-Next-Day-Provisions_Final.pdf

Mrs. B was a female in her 80s who had a challenging medical trajectory following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. She experienced several post-operative sequelae, including wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis, and respiratory failure. She required specialized care in hospital, including additional surgical procedures. Due to physical and functional decline, Mrs. B elected for a palliative approach to care. She was discharged home with palliative supports (i.e., palliative care team and home care support services, including adaptive aids and personal support services). Mrs. B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf. The following day, a MAiD practitioner assessed her for MAiD eligibility. She reportedly told the MAiD assessor that she wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values and beliefs. She communicated that pursuing in-patient palliative care/hospice care and palliative sedation was more in-keeping with her end-of-life goals.

The next morning, Mrs. B presented to the emergency department (ED) of her local hospital. Her spouse was noted to be experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed to be in stable condition, and thereby discharged home with continued palliative care. Her palliative care physician completed a referral for in-patient palliative care / hospice care due to her social circumstances (i.e., caregiver burnout). Her request was denied for not meeting hospice criteria for end-of-life, and a long-term care application was offered.

On the same day, Mrs. B’s spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service requesting an urgent assessment. A different MAiD assessor from the previous day completed a primary assessment and determined Mrs. B to be eligible for MAiD. The former MAiD practitioner was contacted. This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns regarding the necessity for ‘urgency’ and shared belief for the need for more comprehensive evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to caregiver burnout). The initial MAiD practitioner requested an opportunity to visit with Mrs. B the following day to re-assess; however, this opportunity was declined by the MAiD provider due to their clinical opinion that the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision. An additional MAiD practitioner was arranged by the MAiD coordination service to complete a virtual assessment. Mrs. B was found eligible for MAiD by this third assessor. The provision of MAiD was completed later that evening.

A MAID assessment requires the person to be conscious and mentally aware. It sounds like the caretaker husband convinced his wife to go through with it after inpatient hospice was denied.

I don't know if that's the same incident, I just remember the court case making the rounds 4 or 5 years ago. One of the kids trying to claim that the Doctor had acted against his mothers wishes or something.

A MAID assessment requires the person to be conscious and mentally aware.

I believe this was one of the facts under contention.

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