site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   2888 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 23, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have also seen the argument float around that she is actually the victim of a society which didn't take her mental illness seriously until it was too late. This is happening to many other parents which is why they relate. I just don't quite think that works when

  1. She killed her own kids. That's a bit like saying Joaquin Phoenix's Joker was not responsible for the murders he committed.

  2. Much of the support is either in the form of denying she did it or "I understand, I want to kill my children too".

There is a strong element of the very popular "anti-psychiatry" and "anti-healthcare" trends. This is absurdly popular online you can see lots of stories of "I brought my husband to the doctor so they would listen" and so on. Never mind that most healthcare workers are female.

In this case it's stupid because she was clearly doctor shopping, signed herself out of inpatient care, and at best lied about her symptoms to multiple people involved in her care.

These kind of people don't let facts get in the way however.

In this case, I think there's an even bigger issue: she made no effort to mitigate the effects of her purported illness on others. If you are truly seeking treatment for an illness that is widely recognized as threatening to others--particularly vulnerable others you have special responsibilities toward, you have a duty to put their safety over your own. Why didn't she separate herself from her kids? Why didn't she tell her husband "I'm not getting the care I need, I'm going to stay somewhere else for a while."? It's not "anti-psychiatry" and "anti-healthcare" trends that cause this. It is entitlement. "Healthcare exists to ensure I don't have to make any sacrifices. I'm already struggling, why should I have to take on these burdens. They failed me."

It’s the toaster-fucker problem again. I think it’s well established that parents sometimes feel dark impulses towards their children: my friend had a child in the very conservative Japan and one of the pieces of official advice the prep classes emphasise most is, ‘no matter how annoying it is or how angry you get, DON’T SHAKE THE BABY’.

In common society this is considered unfortunate and shameful, to be explained quietly only to the relevant parties and not to be said in public. Most certainly not in front of your now-grown children!

But now the internet is making what was quietly and implicitly known into something explicit. Parents are going ‘wait, you wanted to literally kill your children too?’ and experiencing this as catharsis instead of mutual shame. America’s confessional culture and no-woman-is-ever-at-fault-unless-she’s-trad feminism is then turbo-boosting this phenomenon.

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