site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   22936 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How do you get a doctor to kill a baby that's days from coming out and is clearly already a human?

That's easy. It's only a baby if the mother wants it and is not medically terminologically classified as a "baby" rather than a "foetus" until after live birth and total separation from the mother. Pre-delivery foetus has no standing of legal personhood. That includes up to moving into the vaginal tract for delivery:

A fetus is not a legal person and only gains legal personhood at birth, when it is alive and has been delivered completely separated from the pregnant person’s body. A fetus, thus, cannot have a legal parent as it is not a legally recognised entity capable of being the subject of ‘parenthood’. By virtue of not being a legal person, a fetus neither has legal rights nor legal standing. No legal claims can be made by others on its behalf; for example, to protect its welfare. Legal parenthood cannot apply to it; no one can be its parent. However, significantly, the mater est principle as codified in the statute regulating ART specifies that a woman who ‘is carrying or has carried a child… is to be treated as the mother’.

Or after a failed abortion.

Several clinical studies have examined the medical circumstances under which live births can occur following attempted abortion, particularly in the second and third trimesters when the fetus has approached or is approaching viability (typically around 20 to 24 weeks of gestation). Additionally, though extremely rare, a few first trimester failed abortion attempts have resulted in live births later on in pregnancy. Live birth outcomes are most likely to occur with the labor induction abortion method and when feticidal measures, such as intracardiac injection to stop the fetal heartbeat, are unsuccessful or omitted. In the context of abortion, feticide refers to the intentional killing of an embryo or fetus prior to expulsion from the uterus.

One of the most comprehensive studies on this phenomenon is a 2024 retrospective cohort study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Reviewing over 13,000 second-trimester abortions (15–29 weeks gestation) in a cohort indicated for fetal anomaly, maternal emergency, or other causes performed in Quebec, Canada, the study found that 11.2% of these procedures resulted in live births. This risk was especially pronounced at 20–24 weeks, where the likelihood of live birth was nearly five times higher compared to abortions performed at 15–19 weeks. Significantly, the use of feticidal injections, specifically intracardiac or intrathoracic administration, reduced this relative likelihood by 57%.

But don't worry! The unwanted products of conception will usually die on their own if there is no medical intervention, unless those spoilsport pro-lifers managed to get laws passed about not just putting the thing on a shelf and leaving it to die. That was an entire controversy back in 2002.

These findings are supported by other clinical studies and observations as well. A 2018 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which focused specifically on second-trimester abortions performed without feticide for fetal anomalies or genetic abnormalities between 20 and 24 weeks gestation, found that 50.6% of fetuses were born alive. The median survival time in these cases was 32 minutes. Live birth following the attempted abortions was more likely in cases involving higher gestational age and the absence of severe anomalies. A smaller study, published in 2016 via The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, found that 15% of labor induction abortions performed between 16 and 22 weeks gestation resulted in unintended live births. Most of these infants exhibited cardiac activity for less than two hours. Consistent with most other research, the probability of live birth increased with gestational age. The study also found that attempted terminations due to prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome (trisomy 21) were associated with a higher likelihood of live birth.

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