site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1mo ago (text post)   6277 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for September 2024

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 in the Main Subreddit

@naraburns:

@Highpopalorum:

@2D3D:

Contributions for the week of September 2, 2024

@Dean:

@faceh:

@KolmogorovComplicity:

@ControlsFreak:

@RenOS:

Special Issue: Babies Everywhere!

@Hoffmeister25:

@ProfQuirrell:

@Tractatus:

@doglatine:

@urquan:

@satirizedoor:

Contributions for the week of September 9, 2024

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@ControlsFreak:

@gorge:

@Rov_Scam:

Contributions for the week of September 16, 2024

@Dean:

@naraburns:

@100ProofTollBooth:

@Walterodim:

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@MaiqTheTrue:

On An Ideology With No Name

@MadMonzer:

@Hoffmeister25:

@FCfromSSC:

@Supah_Schmendrick:

Contributions for the week of September 23, 2024

@teleoplexy:

@wemptronics:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@Hoffmeister25:

@LotsRegret:

You're a Villain All Right

@Baila:

@DirtyWaterHotDog:

@faceh:

Contributions for the week of September 30, 2024

@self_made_human:

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it’s rude in most circles to criticize others for casual sex, excessive drinking, or drug use.

Casting aspersions on others maybe, but it seems totally OK to criticize these things.

The only context I can think of where being negative about casual sex — per se, in an unqualified way, not “oh you should really use a condom/PrEP/thepill/etc.” — is remotely OK is literally at church, or when the perpetrator is someone you know who goes to the same church as you (and of course even that's only if your local group happens to be conservative-ish).

I wonder what your definition of "remotely okay" here is. I do not have the same perspective as you at all here, and I would hardly call my current situation that of a churchgoer.

I’ve had secular, male, young people(so what we should naively expect to be the most pro-casual sex demographic) say unprompted ‘you shouldn’t treat women that way’ ‘promiscuity is wrong’ ‘if you want that, visit a whore. Otherwise commit to her’ ‘he’s not a good guy, he’s promiscuous’ etc etc. These men were not waiting for marriage and didn’t think women should either.

There are certainly filter bubbles where openly criticizing casual sex is verboten, but I’m unconvinced they’re the majority. Certainly my coworkers mostly think that one night stands are doing wrong, and based on observed behavior they’re more likely to have kids out of wedlock than go to church regularly.

These are examples of men getting criticized for their promiscuity though. This is a rather important distinction.

You can totally criticize women for promiscuity in a ‘stop making bad decisions’ way. It’s not against the rules. You can even say sex without commitment is morally wrong.

The difference is that using rude words remains rude(and no, playboy is not a rude word).

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