site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   33240 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It reminds me of the gay marriage debate if those arguing against gay marriage opposed marriage for straight people too.

I might take that stance, in a way. Say marriage could well be trated as an purely private affair, without laws concerning it, it being entirely between the people getting married, the state having no say in the matter, reeee no step on snek. I could live with that.

Or else demographics is destiny and the state, the superorganism that we are but humble cells of, must take destiny by the horns, and gay marriage is then a simple farce that has no place in the world.

The intermediate stance of "the state should have extensive legislation concerning marriage including gay marriage" just strikes me as nonsensical.

I am so tired of all this gender talk. Is this really the great Culture War battlefield of our time? Men playing at being women in some ways? Let them. Let them and damn them. I wish we could just ignore the lot of them and move on.

I did and still do oppose marriage as an institution of the state where they act as gatekeepers. It was originally used to prevent mixed race marriages.

Legal contracts between consenting adults are not something I think the state should be able to veto. I'm admittedly pretty libertarian in my beliefs.

It was originally used to prevent mixed race marriages.

...which is why only the US and a few other post-colonial nations have it, right?

I believe he was referring to the Romans, actually. Who are as far as I know the inventors of civil marriage (in the West) and had limitations around who could legally marry who that sometimes forbade intermarriage.

Then in the middle ages it became an affair of local custom, then a church sacrament, and only recently (during the religious wars and to allow protestants to marry, among other various reasons depending on the country) has it become an administrative ceremony once again.

Then I doubt the original use was about race, as opposed to being used that way at some point.

Legal contracts between consenting adults are not something I think the state should be able to veto. I'm admittedly pretty libertarian in my beliefs.

As an aside, bankruptcy is a notable exception to this with a long historical pedigree -- the State gets to abrogate perfectly consensual contracts and has had that right for centuries.

Somewhat understand this. At least one party is usually financially aware and responsible. If that can be priced into the product then the end result is that unreliable borrowers just don't get to be able to borrow money. If people are willing to accept that then so be it. My understanding is that they tend to complain about this result: "Banks wont lend money to the underclass"

Yup, and I totally understand this.

The weird thing, in my view, is that bankruptcy is an impairment on the fulfillment of a consensual contract that all parties actually want, in some sense. Lenders like it because it provides for orderly and final disposition of insolvent creditors. Creditors like it because it means they won't be on the hook indefinitely and can get another chance.

As such, it's a (small) thorn in the side of libertarian theory. I'm still broadly a squishy-libertarian, but it's an interesting theoretical topic. And it's certainly interesting to think about in a forum that isn't dominated by people trying to drunk using shitty internet gotchas.

Legal contracts between consenting adults are not something I think the state should be able to veto.

What is your definition of coercion in this context?

I have personal opinions and covering all the edge cases and minutia would be a lot of effort, but I'm fine with it being defined by a common law court system.

I'm fine with it being defined by a common law court system.

Ah, here's our disagreement. Or a disagreement, at least.

My prediction of such a system is that the hole of vetoing contracts by way of declaring them coercive would grow over time until the state regained full control.

It is competition with the state, which cannot stand without support for the reasons @MaiqTheTrue highlighted.

Some did. Much of the homosexual opposition to gay marriage was on grounds of abolition. Certainly a minority position, but it was there.

I can't speak for all of them, but I am opposed to straight people getting gay married.

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