site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15535 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.

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.

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