site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   25781 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.

Acting like monogamy is some sort of shackle that inhibits mens innate drives is wrong. Monogamy serves to put long term interest above short term male impulses.

These are not mutually incompatible claims.

Most Humans are naturally serial monogamists. I concede that 30 year+ marriages are probably much less sexually long term fullfilling than switching partners every 5 years past 45.

No they're not. Not even half of marriages end in divorce and thats with the people divorcing often doing so multiple times.

It may well be that long marriages are less sexually fulfilling but that doesn't mean they're not fulfilling the needs of the people involved. Sex is hardly the only need and it's something that generally becomes less important as people age.

Not even half of marriages end in divorce

This figure necessarily is significantly lagging.

Do you have e.g. actuarial-table-style divorce data within the past five years? I'd love to see it if so - all I can find is raw rates which don't say much on their own.

Divorce rates have been trending down since the nineties, why would you expect that trend to reverse?

An addendum: I see many plausible pushes to underreport divorce stats, and very few plausible pushes to overreport divorce stats. And one common approach to misleading with statistics is precisely to publish (only) the subset of the statistical measures which agree with the outcome you want.

Hence: Do you have e.g. actuarial-table-style divorce data within the past five years?

Marriage rates have also been trending down, and divorces tend to be frontloaded, i.e. higher rates earlier in a marriage.

All of this combines to make it absolutely possible that simultaneously:

a) Raw divorce rates per 1000 people per year have dropped.
b) People who marry young are more likely to get divorced.

This is the "raw rates which don't say much on their own" I mention in my prior comment.

I probably shoud have rephrased it as "ONLY some sort of shackle". We have no disagreement.

It may well be that long marriages are less sexually fulfilling but that doesn't mean they're not fulfilling the needs of the people involved. Sex is hardly the only need and it's something that generally becomes less important as people age.

Maybe. Its not as clear cut though. There's probably a convincing case that for >65 year olds polyamory/lemon parties is the optimal happiness strategy. They just aren't bothered enough to try.

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