site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22d ago (text post)   23730 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.

CP?

One can be a free speech absolutist and still think CSAM should be illegal. The thing that makes it evil is the manner of its production, not its distribution.

Banning mere possession (with no before-the-fact knowledge of production) is already on shaky ground, free-speech-absolutist-wise. As soon as you cross into "This should be illegal because it resembles actual CSAM" you have to turn in your absolutist card.

Actually, you've probably already lost your card when you ban production, because CSAM includes material produced by sexting teens.

CSAM includes material produced by sexting teens.

I think this is an extremely noncentral example of what people talk about when they talk about CSAM.

I'd consider the point of being an absolutist to be that one considers the principle to apply absolutely, such that it is just as appropriate to apply to noncentral cases as to central cases.

My point was that this is the first I've heard of teens sexting being categorised as CSAM, and would genuinely love to know in which jurisdictions it's categorised as such.

AIUI essentially all of the Anglosphere legally considers under-18s sexting to be CP, which is usually given some dysphemism like the one you're using (Australia's is "child exploitation material").

As I also understand it, they don't generally come after people for the "teen sexting" case unless somebody makes a fuss (e.g. girl asks boy to delete her sexts, he refuses, she complains; boy dumps girl, girl posts boy's sexts online; etc.).

IANAL, though.

I don't consider "child sex abuse material" a dysphemism. Pornography, by definition, is produced with the consent of those depicted; children definitionally cannot consent to being sexually exploited; ergo, sexually explicit videos featuring children cannot be pornography.

Pornography, by definition, is produced with the consent of those depicted

I hate to nitpick but is that really true, definitionally? All the dictionaries define it more narrowly as 'material meant to sexually arouse'.

Consider a deepfake nude made of a celebrity, or fanfiction about another celebrity. Are these somehow not pornographic because the celebrities weren't consulted?

Consider a deepfake nude made of a celebrity, or fanfiction about another celebrity. Are these somehow not pornographic because the celebrities weren't consulted?

Why would they need to be consulted in these situations? Consent is only needed for their performance--if they don't perform in the media, as they don't in such fictional situations, then their consent is irrelevant.

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