site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2d ago (text post)   Edited 2d ago   2047 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for October 2026

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.

Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

@FiveHourMarathon:

Contributions for the week of September 28, 2026

@100ProofTollBooth:

Contributions for the week of October 5, 2026

@kky:

@YE_GUILTY:

@ThenElection:

@FtttG:

@roystgnr:

@YoungAchamian:

@KingOfTheBailey:

@Shakes:

@hanikrummihundursvin:

@OliveTapenade:

Contributions for the week of October 12, 2026

@4bpp:

@Rov_Scam:

@coffee_enjoyer:

@FCfromSSC:

@rockbier1218:

Contributions for the week of October 19, 2026

@Shakes:

@Iconochasm:

@Dean:

@Primaprimaprima:

@naraburns:

@satirizedoor:

Contributions for the week of October 26, 2026

@Shrike:

@hanikrummihundursvin:

@FCfromSSC:

@SecureSignals:

@Nerd:

@Goodguy:

@Shakes:

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I suppose the way it's portrayed is that magic appears to run in families, and therefore must have a strong genetic component, but that this is just magic Y/N.

I don't know whether you've read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, but this is basically where Yudkowsky arrives on the matter.

As far as I'm aware pureblood defenders in the setting don't make that argument, though. . . . The pureblood supremacist view is that purebloods are individually superior, and that, at least, is clearly indicated to be false.

Right--which is where we wrap back around to the OP. There is no question that Rowling presents the pureblood supremacist view as both wrong and wicked. But an in-universe steelman of pureblood politics might look something like,

Okay, listen, I'm not just saying this because the power imbalance between a Muggle and a Witch or Wizard would almost always preclude the possibility of their marriage ever being a partnership of equals--and I'm certainly not saying it because I think Purebloods are naturally better at magic than Muggleborns. Face it: Muggleborn Hermione Granger is a way better spellcaster than Pureblood Draco Malfoy. Just because a person can do magic doesn't mean they're going to be good at it.

But it's undeniably the case that some people can do magic, whether well or poorly, and some people can't. It also seems evident that "yes magic" runs in families, though whether it's a single gene or a polygenic trait, whether it is a common mutation or a rare one, etc. is totally unknown at this juncture. Muggles routinely abort their babies for having Down Syndrome or other recognizable disabilities in utero, and avoid marrying or having children with others when the match is likely to produce children with Sickle Cell Anemia or Tay-Sachs. The question for the magically endowed is similar: how willing are you to expose your potential children to the risk of being born into a magical world, with the comparative disability of possessing no magical power of their own?

That's the "love" the OP suggests Malfoid (at least potentially) brings to the source material: the love for one's children that is expressed by giving them the best available start, by choosing a high quality reproductive partner. Slytherin need not be bigots to be both proud of what they have (magic is cool!) and anxious to share that inheritance with their own children.

You have suggested that the discourse is tainted by the real-world implications that the OP probably intended for at least some readers to draw vis-a-vis race mixing or the like. Where I think those implications fail is simply that there aren't very many human traits comparable to "magic Y/N," and almost all of them are discrete, identifiable disabilities: Down Syndrome Y/N, Tay-Sachs Y/N/Carrier, Sickle Cell Y/N/Carrier, etc. At present (to the best of my non-expert understanding) the really positive stuff people want to select for in embryo screenings tend to be polygenic and tentative--height, IQ, athleticism, etc. are stochastic spectra rather than binary Y/N traits. But if I were a Wizard in Rowling's world, I think it would be very easy to regard Muggledom as an identifiable disability, at least for the child of a Wizard. In much the way that clinical words for disabilities (imbecile, retard, dumb, lame, etc.) tend to evolve into insults and epithets, I can imagine the perception of Muggledom as Disability forming the psychological foundation of anti-Muggle bigotry.

But a bigotry arising from good science is still bigotry--and good science that gives occasional cover to bigotry is still good science. I think the OP in this case too often fails to fully appreciate the former, but those complaining about the OP here do not seem to fully appreciate the latter. I guess the relevant meme is, "The worst person you know just made a great point." AAQCs are not personality awards, or endorsements, or judgments of moral character. More often than not, "death of the author" applies.

I don't know whether you've read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, but this is basically where Yudkowsky arrives on the matter.

I have never done more than give it a brief glance. I can't stand Yudkowsky's prose style in general, so even if MoR were telling a story I were interested in, I think that would be an insuperable obstacle to me.

That's the "love" the OP suggests Malfoid (at least potentially) brings to the source material: the love for one's children that is expressed by giving them the best available start, by choosing a high quality reproductive partner. Slytherin need not be bigots to be both proud of what they have (magic is cool!) and anxious to share that inheritance with their own children.

I don't think the Harry Potter comparison adds anything here, though?

The hypothetical you bring up is basically the Gattaca argument - a loving parent should want to give his/her children the best possible shot at life, that should involve the best possible genes, so therefore eugenics.

Harry Potter adds nothing to this because, as it sounds like we agree, magical talent in the Potterverse doesn't seem to work that way. Are pureblood/half-blood families particularly less likely to have wizarding children than pureblood/pureblood families? There's no specific textual evidence suggesting that, as far as I'm aware? Magical ability is a simple switch, and squibs appear to be very rare from two wizarding parents, regardless of whether the wizarding parents are from long-established magical families or not.

I suspect I'm on a different page to many on the Motte here, because I do in fact think it's immoral to abort a child due to Down Syndrome or other recognisable disabilities. If a wizarding couple proposed to identify squibs in utero and pre-emptively terminate them, I would say that couple is behaving grossly immorally. As far as canon Potter goes, I think the general direction of the text would be on my side there. Rowling is a liberal feminist and in favour of abortion rights, but the published text of Harry Potter seems like it would be against any notion that squibs are not worthy of life, and anti-squib sentiment is presented as a bigotry, albeit a common one in the wizarding world. For me I think all we need to recognise is that squibs are, like any muggle, clearly capable of living full, satisfying lives. A parent who would rather terminate a squib/muggle child and replace him/her with another one seems worthy of moral condemnation, at the very least.

You have suggested that the discourse is tainted by the real-world implications that the OP probably intended for at least some readers to draw vis-a-vis race mixing or the like.

Right, here. I think I stand by the idea that while it is possible to have a good conversation about reproductive ethics, it's not possible in this particular context because of the original poster. One could have a reasonable discussion of eugenics, but I think it's fair to say that if someone with a known malicious agenda brings the subject up, and sets the tone accordingly, that would make a reasonable discussion much harder to have.

Death of the Author is a good principle for literary analysis, and I think I invoked it a little myself (that is, Rowling's own views may be different to the views logically implied by texts she authored), but I don't think Death of the Author applies in every discursive context. If a person says something to invite a conversation, but through that person's identity, reputation, known other positions, visible agenda, etc., that conversation would be unlikely to be productive, I think it's fair enough to act accordingly.

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