site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   3824 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 14, 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.

Following up on the surrogacy story shared by @MollieTheMare last week, I present to you yet another man-made horror beyond our comprehension:

https://www.lifenews.com/2026/09/14/netherlands-euthanizes-disabled-2-year-old-child/

Another link if you think a pro-life website isn't a trustworthy source: https://nltimes.nl/2026/09/09/first-ever-case-euthanasia-young-child-2-handled-well-dutch-committee

"The doctor and the parents decided to actively end the child’s life after concluding that the supposed suffering could not be relieved, according to the Assessment Committee for Late-Term Abortion and Termination of Life in Newborns and Children Ages 1 to 12."

My first thought while reading this article, apart from general horror at what was done, was "The WHAT committee?" My second thought was to Philip K. Dick's now officially prophetic short story, The Pre-Persons. That's right, if you didn't know, the father of cyberpunk and author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (i.e. Blade Runner) and We Can Remember It for You Wholesale (i.e. Total Recall) was anti-abortion (emphasis mine):

“Oh, good Lord,” his mother exclaimed, on seeing him. “What in the name of God have you been doing?”

He said stammeringly, “I — saw — the abortion — truck.”

“And you thought it was for you?” Mutely, he nodded.

“Listen, Walter,” Cynthia Best said, kneeling down and taking hold of his trembling hands, “I promise, your dad and I both promise, you’ll never be sent to the County Facility. Anyhow you’re too old. They only take children up to twelve.”

Infanticide is nothing new in human history. And while Christian societies haven't been free from killing infants en masse via exposure, abortion, and other means, they have been (as far as I can tell) effectively the only societies in human history to even attempt to abolish the practices. Philip K. Dick, for example, was Episcopalian (though he shifted towards a more Gnostic view of Christianity towards the end of his life).

I guess I'm mostly curious to see everyone's reactions to this story, but also to my assertion that opposition to these things is almost exclusively a Christian thing. I'd be curious to see some secular humanist or other arguments against them, though I strongly suspect that they will be smuggling in some very Christian assumptions without realizing it. After all, to quote Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

One thing I do wonder about, what is your perspective on why this story is uniquely outrageous? Given the medical history, it seems to me more similar than usual to the numerous cases of the life support plug being pulled on the comatose and braindead of more advanced age. I'm aware that Christians tend to not particularly like those either, if prompted, but there does not seem to be that much of an organised opposition and ultimately they are just not what the outrage machine winds up putting on the frontpages of the internet. At the same time, neither the article you linked nor you seem to be pushing an angle suggesting that children are somehow more precious or morally valuable than adults; the focus is instead squarely on the adults making the decision.

Given this, you should understand why it is so easy for your outgroup to convince itself and the NPCface peanut gallery that pro-life activism is really about controlling women's sexuality. The account in which the pro-life activist is theory-of-minded as thinking something like "finally a woman got saddled with the deserved consequences [that is, being a joyless full-time caretaker who stays in the home] of all her fornicating, and now she is trying to weasel herself out of them!", however uncharitable, at least explains all the observations. If pro-lifers have a better account of what is actually the value function according to which they decide what to be outraged about, they have not succeeded in letting it be widely known.

Given the medical history, it seems to me more similar than usual to the numerous cases of the life support plug being pulled on the comatose and braindead of more advanced age. I'm aware that Christians tend to not particularly like those either, if prompted, but there does not seem to be that much of an organised opposition and ultimately they are just not what the outrage machine winds up putting on the frontpages of the internet.

That, and also the death penalty, and war. Apparently slaughtering Persian schoolgirls for no reason is a-ok but aborting a 2 month fetus is not. Weird.

Really crazy. You'd think that Christians would think about what a just war is, compared to an unjust war, and come up with some kind of, uh, theory about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria

Just cause

The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

It fails this massively.

Last resort

The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities. Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as carpet bombing or nuclear warfare.[81]

Fails.

Probability of success

According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable

Remote attacking of maybe-military bases has basically no chance of actually conquering Iran so it is just harassment which fails this criterion.

Competent authority

Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1969 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion.

Fails by deceptive clause. Although, my most controversial take here, I do not believe Trump or POTUS generally has competent authority. POTUS is popularly selected, not meritocratically selected, and most Ancient Christians would agree the USA system of government is structurally invalid. It is basically just mob rule. It's not different than some random street gang going to war. It might be worse because in theory the gangsters have gone through some kind of selective merit mechanism if they have survived for any length of time. The USA is a big never challenged plot of land run by a popularity government, the opposite of competent authority. And Trump embodies this perfectly.

And Trump literally committed the worst sin by slaughtering the leader of Iran surreptitiously.

I'm pretty sure it's well agreed that the Israelis murdered the ayatollah. Whether the US's participation in the war was instrumental in his death is certainly up for debate, but Trump was nowhere near ordering him to be blown up.

Additionally the list of criteria you listed is one of secular philosophy. Despite incorporating elements of christian thinking, the overall criteria is the result of secular thought.

most Ancient Christians would agree the USA system of government is structurally invalid. It is basically just mob rule. It's not different than some random street gang going to war.

Yeah and instead they believe that rule by kings an emperors is good and right. Murdering the previous emperor and taking power in a bloody coup like the Romans loved to do was a perfect and flawless example of legitimate secular authority in Jesus's teachings.

I'm pretty sure it's well agreed that the Israelis murdered the ayatollah.

Do we know that for sure? Any source?

Yeah and instead they believe that rule by kings an emperors is good and right. Murdering the previous emperor and taking power in a bloody coup like the Romans loved to do was a perfect and flawless example of legitimate secular authority in Jesus's teachings.

Asking the peasants which liar should be the tyrant is at best hardly better. Obviously a better form of government can be / has been designed but mob rule is kept for bad reasons.

Who were the ancient Christians??? Who were they???

You're the one who keeps bringing them up.

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