site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   36029 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How is international free PREP uncontroversial? Mandates that insurance cover it for free domestically are controversial.

For someone with my position on these programs, at best they are a self-licking ice cream cone that spends money on an eternal treadmill, constantly preserving the lives of people who will almost instantly die if aid is ever cut off without any path towards independence from said aid. And, likely, keeping those populations way above stable levels, wherein they will constantly be a threat to migrate to better lands and become wards of the state there.

At worst they are direct subsidies for immoral behavior like sodomy.

There is absolutely nothing "immoral" about sodomy.

Many prominent moral systems disagree with you, as does biology, considering it spreads STDs at extremely high rates.

"Biology" doesn't care what we do, we all die of something in the end. Technology prevents the spread of STDs a lot more effectively than purity culture. I'm not going to spend my limited time living under christian slave morality.

Not having anal sex is better than technology at preventing the spread of STDs, as indicated by the AIDS epidemic, the recent monkeypox epidemic, and whatever one comes next.

That sodomy is bad is not an idea limited to Christians. All the big 3 Abrahamic religions are against it. Buddhism holds it violates the 3rd precept. Hinduism holds it is offense against Dharma possibly requiring being cast out into a lower caste. Confucianism states that it goes against the family, which is held as one of the highest places of honor.

I mean if you like buttsex a lot, thats your thing. But I don't think society should be compelled to subsidize that life choice as if it is as prosocial as married couples having babies (in fact the annualized cost of PREP seems to be a tad higher even than a woman getting pregnant every 2 years!).

the annualized cost of PREP seems to be a tad higher even than a woman getting pregnant every 2 years

But a lot lower than the cost of not preventing the spread of HIV even among men who refuse to stop having promiscuous sex with other mutually consenting men, given that twice as many patients with uncontrolled AIDS equals twice as many chances for HIV to mutate into a form that can easily infect people who are monogamous or celibate and who do not use intravenous drugs.

Certainly a bold and speculative claim considering we don't know the risks of mutation and, just as importantly, the true effect of PREP and what "undetectable" means long term. Its entirely possible that huge swathes of those in that status ARE spreading it in a lower key fashion and by continually maintaining the virus in that state they are contributing to the problem of potential mutation, particularly in a way that would have it eventually adapt against such treatments.

I would be very confident in saying your assertion is unfounded, particularly compared to a more targeted campaign that was combined with a more traditional method of dealing with disease like quarantine. HIV is one of the most quarantine-friendly viruses of all time.

Hinduism holds it is offense against Dharma possibly requiring being cast out into a lower caste

Examples of barbaric cultures that I would never want to live in aren't really going to convince me. All countries that are remotely civilized protect LGBT rights.

I mean if you like buttsex a lot, thats your thing.

I certainly don't, but I'm not going to have christians and jews telling me what I can and can't do. Secularism is what made America great, and religion is what keeps the middle east a dump.

constantly preserving the lives of people who will almost instantly die if aid is ever cut off without any path towards independence from said aid

That proves too much, as it could also be applied to many other life-saving medications, such as, inter alia, anti-rejection drugs for people with organ transplants.

That proves too much, as it could also be applied to many other life-saving medications, such as, inter alia, anti-rejection drugs for people with organ transplants.

The domestic healthcare and health insurance industries do need to be allowed to do much more cost-benefit analysis and let people die more often as well, yes. Society gives into the pressure of tears/potential tears far too often nowadays is one of my consistent positions.

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