site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   33452 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.

In which case, you have my sympathy. As I said:

It’s looking like I won’t be able to have one myself, which tears me up inside. But that doesn’t mean that anything you do to have a child is right or justified.

It’s not what I’d hoped for either, but there are other ways to contribute to society.

I appreciate your sympathy, but I will not appreciate the sentiment that it “is what it is” and one of my options is a moral stain on society and I should go to jail or something. The sentiment of this “sanctity” between a birth mother and child is completely lost on me. My mother gave birth to me, I suckled on her breasts and came out of her womb blah, blah, blah, and there was not a single maternal aspect about her and no amount of biological relation did anything to help that or my proceeding siblings; if anything, I had a better shot of being raised not like a dog with literally anyone else. And observing this pattern repeatedly among my friends and even my boyfriend makes the notion of biological motherhood being superior above all else a joke to me. I’ve seen enough mothers give birth to children they have as much maternal attachment to as a toddler does to their toy to be rid of the notion there’s something special made between a biological mother and her children that can’t be replicated in any other parenting situation.

You say youre not a troll, but this is a very wordy version of "Conservatism is bad because I hate my family.".

…how so?

It looks more like someone giving a counter example to a proposed definition. Nor does it say anything about the general principle of conservatism.

What definition? Im pretty sure the disagreement is substantive. And yes, she doesnt say anything about conservatism in general - various ways of hating your family are deployed against various parts of social conservatism, and this is one of them. Maybe it would have been clearer to say "instance" instead of "version"?

Yes, at least the child will have a mother figure but you have knowingly taken it away from its actual mother, forever.

I figured they were fighting over that bit: whether or not giving birth is enough to get the special status of “actual mother.” It’s a substantive disagreement but also a definitional one.

Okay, I see what you mean by “instance.”

I thought its about whether its ok to buy/sell a child/its production.

Honest question for religious conservatives here, why shouldn't secular people just straight up make your religion illegal, shut down your churches, burn your bibles, etc? Sure, advocating that would lead to a politically damaging public backlash. But is there a principled reason why they shouldn't do those things?

But is there a principled reason why they shouldn't do those things?

Yes. My religion is correct. Accordingly, doing any of that is evil.

But ignoring that, as hydroacetylene says, a classical liberal might think that it would be morally wrong to do that. Further, it's not like everyone will stop if you just ask nicely. You're going to have to kill a bunch of people. What benefit do you have that's worth killing a bunch of productive citizens?

Further, it's not like everyone will stop if you just ask nicely. You're going to have to kill a bunch of people. What benefit do you have that's worth killing a bunch of productive citizens?

This is correct. You should always consider that the people you try to repress might retaliate against you violently. Religious fundamentalists should likewise consider this before trying to force their religious morality on secular people. Some people here have said that physicians in Texas are refusing to treat pregnant women as part of some pro-choice political agenda. I doubt this, but if it's true I say, what'd you expect? You think they're demonic, well, the demonic people don't feel like giving you medical treatment.

the people you try to repress

What does "repress" mean?

before trying to force their religious morality on secular people

What does "religious morality" mean here? What are the bounds of "religious morality" vs. "definitely-not-religious-totally-universal morality"? If Raskolnikov says that he thinks that killing people is just fine, would you say that society as a whole is obligated to listen to him?

You think they're demonic

Where did I say this?

the demonic people don't feel like giving you medical treatment.

I have no problem with freedom of association, provided that we exist in a society with available alternatives.

I wonder why you wrote this here?

Under a classical liberal framework? Yes, the same principled reasons that it shouldn’t violently repress dozens or hundreds of other groups.

Under an NrX framework? Because we make good citizens and have demands compatible with flourishing societies. This doesn’t necessarily apply to other religions, but it seems to for Christianity.

Under a one-truth exclusivist framework, that reason would be ‘because we are right and you are wrong’. Obviously, you disagree. But that disagreement goes both ways.

Under a progressive move away from classical liberalism, even Scandinavia and the Netherlands prefer to tolerate their fundamentalist Christian minorities. I suspect a society willing/able to repress Christian fundamentalism is one you do not wish to live in; it probably takes China-tier totalitarianism.

I suspect a society willing/able to repress Christian fundamentalism is one you do not wish to live in; it probably takes China-tier totalitarianism.

This slippery-slope objection never seems to stop religious fundamentalists from demanding their morality be the basis of state policy, so you'll forgive me if I wonder whether it's being put fourth in good faith.

There are societies in existence right now which don’t oppress married straight people but which target the groups Christian fundamentalists don’t like. Like Poland is not as nice of a place to live as the USA but that’s because of needing to catch up after communism, not because of present day authoritarianism.

The societies which successfully oppress Christian fundamentalists are societies in which government oppression hits everyone, like China. No doubt Dutch Christian fundamentalists would prefer a government more favorable to them, but they get by just fine with laws far less favorable than in the USA. And the Netherlands has far more state capacity, and far fewer political protections for Christian fundamentalism, than the U.S., and attempts to repress it have failed.

I’m not going to pretend my bias doesn’t exist, but by the same token I won’t agree that it doesn’t have an empirical backing. You can have societies where Christian fundamentalism has a lot of influence, and even makes life very difficult for certain groups, without subjecting everyone to totalitarianism. Repressing fundamentalist Christianity seems to be a different thing- you can go full China, or you can tolerate it.

We're several years past Blue Tribe presidential candidates running on taxing religions they don't like. And of course, Japan successfully suppressed Christianity in the 1600s, Russia in the 1900s and China in the 1950s. In the more limited context of this forum, one of the things that beat the liberalism out of me was the multiple iterations of the circumcision argument, where my opposites argued that religions have conformed themselves to society before, and therefore there's no reason not to use state power to force them to conform arbitrarily in the future. Nor is my opposition to this attitude principled; I'm happy to argue on behalf of the Jews, but I would not be willing to extend the same toleration for the more extreme forms of female genital mutilation, much less Aztec blood sacrifice.

It is entirely obvious that there is no secular, materialist reason not to ban a given religion. We ban harmful things all the time, always have and always will, and there is no objective definition of "harm" for people to resort to in situations of disagreement. It is trivial to generate a definition where conservative Christianity (or drinking alcohol, or playing video games, or teaching women to read, & etc) are serious threats that require the power of the state to suppress.

More generally, tolerance is not a moral precept. There are many good contingent arguments why suppressing conservative Christianity would be a poor idea; Christians are pretty near the core of good citizens, at least under a standard of "good citizen" that has prevailed until recently, and also they are a very old and thus fairly well-understood phenomenon, so there's an argument to stick to the devil you know, as it were. Ultimately, however, toleration is a question of value, and values observably change over time. If your values have changed sufficiently that toleration of conservative Christians no longer seems like a good idea, that's sorta the whole ball game, isn't it? It's sort of like architecture: at the point where you have to expend constant effort to keep the building from falling down, it's probably coming down one way or the other.

Liberalism was built on the assumption that the values held by its founders were something approximating a universal constant, that all humans would hold something approximating those values more or less indefinitely. This assumption is false, and once that realization settles in, Liberalism becomes completely incoherent. Moreover, it is likely that its development and influence were necessarily path-dependent, that it only worked as long as it did because no one had really tried it at scale before, and so the results were unknown. The results now being known, it seems unlikely that it will persist, much less revive.

There are many good contingent arguments why suppressing conservative Christianity would be a poor idea; Christians are pretty near the core of good citizens, at least under a standard of "good citizen" that has prevailed until recently, and also they are a very old and thus fairly well-understood phenomenon, so there's an argument to stick to the devil you know, as it were. Ultimately, however, toleration is a question of value, and values observably change over time. If your values have changed sufficiently that toleration of conservative Christians no longer seems like a good idea, that's sorta the whole ball game, isn't it?

This assumes that Christians are the ones standing still and others are the ones whose values are changing. This does not fit with the last few years, where people who previously didn't know what IVF was have made opposition to it central to their politics. As you say, the question of whether a religion should be tolerated depends on what it's actually doing, and that can change over time.

This does not fit with the last few years, where people who previously didn't know what IVF was have made opposition to it central to their politics.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I remember IVF as a hugely controversial issue since before I was even politically aware, like since I was 10 or thereabouts.

Why is IVF more important than every other part of being a productive citizen? Especially given that it's not like Christians are being at all successful in getting rid of it.

The fact that you seem to be sincerely arguing for this makes me considerably more positive towards the times when being a Christian was a prerequisite for holding public office.

Especially given that it's not like Christians are being at all successful in getting rid of it.

Reminded me of this:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc

That reply is understandable, if seculars are going to take away Christians' rights, Christians are going to try and preemptively suppress seculars to prevent that. And likewise seculars will point to this and say, "look, this is why we need to suppress Christians before they suppress us." Might there be some way that these two groups can get along, say, come to an agreement not to force their morality on one another? And yes, this will mean woke seculars, who I despise just as much as Bible thumpers, will stop trying to use anti-discrimination law to violate the free association rights of their enemies.

Not permitting a population to hold political office is very different from attempting to eliminate a population by force.

What does "force their morality" mean? What is your morality? I don't like all the imprecision of the language here.

I'm not a religious conservative, but of course there is - people need ways to maintain and improve their spiritual health. Is there an atheist materialist reason? No, because religious people aren't atheist materialists.

And more simply, the suppression of true religion is opposition to God himself. That is bad.

Atheistically, if you care about modern liberalism, that would suffice as a reason, what with tolerance being worthwhile and all.

There are a lot of ways you could have rebutted an argument from personal experience without taking cheap shots like this.

If you just mean you get a bad vibe, then fine, but I dont see which rule it breaks. There are other rebuttals that could be made, but I dont want to make a rebuttal - my point isnt even that its right or wrong, its a) this comment is 4x as long as it needs to b) if it wasnt plushed up, you might notice its an extremely klischee point and try to do more than reenact arguments weve seen a 1000 times.

It’s a legit point. The conservative project relies on an idyllic view of the past and of conservative families, which can be hard to maintain when you’ve seen it from the inside. My grandparents ‘s generation were all very religious, and so it was common for spouses to hate each other all their life.

Plus, a lot of straightforward claims conservatives make like ‘all mothers love their children’, ‘all men feel the need to protect women and children’, ‘all people have a god-shaped hole’, etc, can be refuted through a single anecdote.

The conservative project relies on an idyllic view of the past and of conservative families, which can be hard to maintain when you’ve seen it from the inside. My grandparents ‘s generation were all very religious, and so it was common for spouses to hate each other all their life.

But certainly not all families are like that. I was raised in a happy family, and, to my knowledge, have mostly encountered happy families at church and so forth.

Do conservatives usually say that these things just happen by default? I'm more used to conceptualizing things as natural tendencies or roles, which we then have a responsibility and a duty to actually carry out.

The conservative project relies on an idyllic view of the past and of conservative families

Well, no. I don't know what you mean by "conservative project" but conservatives don't simply register the past as "idyllic" as a rule. There's plenty of bad stuff in there! Communism, Nazism, the origin point of modern conservatism was Burke's response to the French Revolution.

The point is that conservatives point to pro-social behaviors, practices, and traditions that over hundreds and thousands of years have repeatedly shown themselves to be unquestionably beneficial to humanity and society. These are the very concepts, ideas, and traditions we seek to conserve. We don't believe in radical and accelerated experimentation with these. Within living memory, we went from "boys shouldn't hit girls" to arguing that more boys should be allowed to pummel girls for money.

My grandparents ‘s generation were all very religious, and so it was common for spouses to hate each other all their life.

Then I'd argue they weren't people of genuine faith, but scrupulous virtue signalers who used organized religious practices - and voiced adherence of them - to assuage their guilt for being shitbags. This is extremely common in evangelical circles and in the online RadTrad and OrthoBro spaces. It is astonishing how people who truly, deeply live the principles of their faith come across as intensely normal, pleasant, and happy people.

‘all mothers love their children’

This is not a core conservative claim unless you add in "should" between "mothers" and "love"

‘all men feel the need to protect women and children’

See above.

‘all people have a god-shaped hole’

Ah, well, credit where it is due. I think this is probably a core conservative claim and one of the big wedges between conservatives and "libertarians" (although, personally, I find the term "libertarian" to be close to meaningless.) For instance, one can't help but smirk at the fact that the "Rational" community has re-invented the concept of Satan as Moloch....when Moloch is literally a Biblical demon.

I'm not saying those are core claims, just what garden-variety conservatives frequently say at the dinner table. I don't consider anecdotes like justawoman's to be refutations of serious conservative thought. But they are not "trolling".

It is astonishing how people who truly, deeply live the principles of their faith come across as intensely normal, pleasant, and happy people.

I'm trying to avoid debating the entirety of conservatism, but that's obviously a No True Christian fallacy.

Other ideologies have their own idealizations of an imagined past or an imagined future, of course. And simplistic stuff they say at the dinner table.

I'm trying to avoid debating the entirety of conservatism, but that's obviously a No True Christian fallacy.

What's the sample that you're drawing from? Since I mostly have experience from churches and similar, and those tend to have pretty good families as far as I can tell.

I'm trying to avoid debating the entirety of conservatism, but that's obviously a No True Christian fallacy.

Aren’t weekly church attendees doing much better, and doing better for others? Doesn’t seem ridiculous or fallacious to note that people who actually practice Christianity tend to become better people, while those who just occasionally talk about it don’t.

Its legit to the extent to which you agree with the complainer that it was the family rather than them that was at fault. Obviously, it is hard to provide evidence for this without doxxing yourself, but that comment didnt even make an attempt, it doesnt even describe any concrete event, only how she feels about things generally.

Say it again, that made me tickle.

Okay, look, I get that you get dogpiled a lot and it's tempting to respond with taunting and snark, but don't. I am demanding that other people stop with the cheap shots, and I'm demanding that you stop responding to cheap shots with "Nyah nyah didn't even hurt me!"

I appreciate your sympathy, but I will not appreciate the sentiment that it “is what it is” and one of my options is a moral stain on society and I should go to jail or something.

I don't expect slavery enjoyers to appreciate my opinion of slavery being a moral stain on society either, but that too is what it is.

The sentiment of this “sanctity” between a birth mother and child is completely lost on me.

So all this Handmaiden's Tale "they just see us as incubators" talk was projection all along? Why are you even bothered by not being able to reproduce, if there's nothing sacred about the mother-child bond for you?

Huh? What Handmaiden’s Tale talk has there been where?

I’m not exactly bothered by it and I like the idea of having children related to me.

Huh? What Handmaiden’s Tale talk has there been where?

You haven't seen any Handmaiden's Tale memes? At all, ever? Not even during MeToo?

I’m not exactly bothered by it and I like the idea of having children related to me.

Well, in that case I find you bringing up your infertility a bit manipulative. The reason people feel sympathy for your situation is that they believe you're deprived of something sacred - literally in case of religious people, and effectively in case of secularists. If you don't see anything particularly valuable about that bond, and it's just a mere "liking" for having biologically related children, the "it is what it is" will commence at an even higher intensity.

No, I don’t spend time on reactionary Twitter lol.

I bring up my infertility not because I want your sympathy but because when you’re talking about women raising surrogate babies you’re talking about me, and there’s this rule where you have write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

No, I don’t spend time on reactionary Twitter lol

?? Those memes came from online feminists.

and there’s this rule where you have write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

I absolutely want you to be included in the conversation, but I don't see how anything Corvos said would make you feel awkward, given your beliefs.

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