site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   10989 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 17, 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.

I believe in punishment for deterrence and prevention.

Prevention: will she have future kids? Will she get some future hormone imbalance that makes her go on a killing spree? Maybe she should be monitored and given therapy, and to prevent this situation happening in other parents, we should monitor and give therapy to those suspected with PDD. But prison is overkill.

Deterrence: this justifies some kind of prison, someone who regrets having kids may fake PDD and kill them for similar release. But I still think a long sentence is excessive, prison is miserable and giving up your kids for adoption should be less.

More generally, the US has such long prison sentences, does it have any effect on crime? For frequent (3x) offenders I support the death penalty (with strong evidence), but for others I think it’s wasteful and unnecessarily cruel.

I believe in punishment for deterrence and prevention.

I believe in punishment for punishment's sake. It is a necessary component of justice and a simple extension of the golden rule: as a person harms another, so too they also shall be harmed. I find that a lot of people express a belief that punishment is a vicious necessity, to be minimized whenever and wherever possible and used only to the extent needed to serve other material ends (especially with respect to women). I don't agree with this at all, and I think it undermines the goal of justice to eliminate righteous punishment for the guilty.

It is a necessary component of justice and a simple extension of the golden rule: as a person harms another, so too they also shall be harmed.

That's not the Golden Rule, that's the lex talionis ("Eye for an eye") principle. An ancient and venerable principle of justice to be sure, but not the same principle at all.

It's a simple logical extension of the principle. In logical terms:

Do unto others → done unto you.

By modus ponens, harm unto others → harm unto you.

I actually think you're getting the logic of the Golden Rule backwards. It isn't:

Do unto others → done unto you.

It's:

Wish done unto you → do unto others

I had the same thought, but then had this idea: there's also an element of mental rehabilitation. If Clancy is now in her right mind, she probably wants to be punished for what she did. Maybe not in an explicable way. But anyone who does something so heinous, whether they were in psychosis or not, will feel they deserve punishment, and will not be mentally whole until they get what they feel they deserve.

I don't necessarily stand by this as a theory of law, but thought it was interesting enough to share.

Im of the strong opinion that findings of insanity should mean treatment until youre sane enough to be punished, then punishment should begin. Hinkley should have begun the normal sentence for an assasination once he was released from the mental institution.

My thoughts were similar. I believe pretty firmly that filicide is a crime worthy of death. I believe it firmly enough that if I ever murdered my children, I would probably administer the punishment myself if the state refused to. The only wrinkle is that I also believe suicide is immoral—but does a self-administered death penalty really count as suicide? I’ve come to think no.

Does the immorality of suicide cause the self-administered death penalty to be more justified, due to how it punishes not only your life but also your sense of self and identity compelling you into a sort of morally contradictory situation where you feel like you have no choice but to do something you consider immoral, or does it cause it to be less justified, due to how it would require you to commit yet another immoral act? I can see the argument for both.

Hence a prison sentence is justified regardless of sanity. The if she wants more “punishment” she can administer it to herself, ideally by community service.

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