site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   33329 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.

Smoking is probably the only one of those that's actually stigmatized today. Body positivity has normalized obesity. My PMC female friend is considering having kids with her boyfriend without marriage. 20% of high income people have tattoos.

Body positivity has normalized obesity.

Has it actually, or do people just pretend that?

I never found false consciousness arguments convincing and I'm not about to start.

Of course, with the advent of ozempic, this question is going to be completely moot in the near future.

You'd think so, but there is that one famous case of a husband who sued his wife for fraud because she had such extensive amounts of plastic surgery that his children came out ugly and he felt betrayed. We toy with natural selection at our own risk.

Best case scenario this ends up like toothbrushes and glasses. Worst case scenario it ends up as diabetes.

Given that the obesity epidemic almost certainly has approximately nothing to do with genetics and obesity is not even selected against (do fatter people have fewer kids? I doubt it), I'm not sure I see the connection to natural selection.

It doesn't have anything to do with genetics yet. The second order effects are the point.

Also it is selected against. There's plenty of studies on this. Obesity even lowers fertility physiologically if I recall correctly. I'm not sure how one would even arrive at the idea that it isn't.

It doesn't have anything to do with genetics yet. The second order effects are the point.

I am not sure what your point is, is what I'm trying to tell you.

Also it is selected against. There's plenty of studies on this. Obesity even lowers fertility physiologically if I recall correctly. I'm not sure how one would even arrive at the idea that it isn't.

My simple mental model is that obesity and fertility are both associated with lower incomes. Obviously this isn't necessarily the full story, but I couldn't immediately find a study that really looked at BMI and lifetime number of kids. Presumably it's not easy since BMI is not constant. Physiological fertility effects are real but may not be decisive, so I'd be curious if you have more reading on this question.

My point is that if you suppress any illness that is selected against through its symptoms, you will get more of it, and that if you aren't providing a cure, you're essentially enlisting future people into the customer base for whatever mitigation you came up with. Insofar as the illness is heritable.

This effect is well understood when it comes to milder things like vision impairments, but it's also one of the somewhat shameful reasons why people abort kids that we can tell will have severe lifelong genetic diseases, or why it's morally questionable to have kids if you know yourself to carry a high risk of such diseases.

Now, obesity is partly heritable, but that's the spectrum you get of potential effects, from easily medicated impediment to significant part of a population has to take meds their whole life to be healthy.

more reading on this question

Here's an example longitudinal study of pretty much exactly what we're talking about here.

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)23299-2/fulltext

My point is that if you suppress any illness that is selected against through its symptoms, you will get more of it, and that if you aren't providing a cure, you're essentially enlisting future people into the customer base for whatever mitigation you came up with. Insofar as the illness is heritable.

Sounds reasonable. My question is how it applies to the obesity epidemic since that isn't genetic. It may be heritable, but I'd bet all the heritability has to do with food habits that parents model for their kids. Ozempic solves that, so if that's the mechanism then the kids might not even need ozempic.

Here's an example longitudinal study of pretty much exactly what we're talking about here.

Thanks, that's good stuff. Interestingly, being underweight is about just as bad for male fertility as being obese.

More comments

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