site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   38660 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

Hatching eggs is a trans reference, not a gay reference.

If you're opposed to degeneracy and degenerates this is a distinction without a difference.

Edit 1

Despite the ban, there is no 'boo outgroup' here. The distinction being made is only relevant to their 'in group'. I'm not sure if there's some qualitative claimed difference between this particular sort of trans grooming vs. non-trans homosexual grooming. The grooming is the objectionable behavior regardless of the specific sort of devients undertaking the grooming.

Unless and until someone wants to make an effort post on non-trans homosexual grooming being less bad or different than trans grooming I stand by it being a distinction without a difference.

Edit 2

It's not railing about degeneracy at best it's observing and noticing. Nor sadly in current year is it exclusive to homosexuals or other sexual minorities, western culture is largely awash in sexual degeneracy and perversion of all sorts. Homosexuals and other sexual minorities seem especially over represented in education and schools. I don't see anything uncivil in the original or subsequent edits.

'Sexual Degeneracy' is not untactful it's an accurate description of the behavior undertaken by a cohort that frequently attempts to destigmatize the behavior in an ongoing effort to appeal to youth. It's not even the sort of coarse language I'd avoid in mixed company. There are an assortment of uncivil terms to apply to this cohort.

The mod action here was boo outgroup.

If others complain about mod actions for language maybe you should collectively be more precise and explicit about the sort of language you don't want.

I suspect you know I hate sexual degenerates grooming youth. Even when I've not used uncivil language to describe the degeneracy you suspect I'm thinking uncivil things about this cohort and railing against them.

As a former sexual degenerate, I suspect I know this cohort better than you.

You know what, you have the cheek to report your own comment for an AAQC. I have to respect that, if absolutely nothing else.

lol, I used to do that on the subreddit. I don't do it here because the mods can see who reported what.

In response to your edit, you weren’t banned for claiming there’s no difference. You were banned for railing about degeneracy.

Probably the single most common complaint about our moderation comes from people thinking “surely those rules about civility and tact don’t apply here, for my outgroup!”

My man, you've convinced me to switch to the default Motte theme in my profile so I can both flashbang my eyes and also see what kind of record of past rule-breaking you've been up to.

My eyes are burnt, and so is your standing with us mods. I see a long list of past warnings and temp bans, and not a single good thing to counteract that. You've been warned for low effort commentary as well as booing the outgroup more times than I want to count.

Banned for a month, and I leave it open to the others if they want to extend this.

If you are posting on a forum for clarifying shady thinking about culture war topics, it is a distinction you need to make anyway, even if you would rather conflate every outgroup activity you dislike.

It's a real shame that the traditionalist position tends to be trivially reducible to "peepee in but = bad", not that the progressive one (which is just "peepee in vuhgina = bad") is any better.

Honestly, I'm more interested in the mechanisms of why it might come to pass that a child might somehow be "converted" into a Gay. I would rather hear "well, you constantly said Man Bad so I became [a reflection of] a woman instead (coincidentally complete with all the negative attributes, or at least lack of positive ones, thereof)" than it just being chalked up to XXX-rays.

I am continually told it happens but without a claimed mechanism of action unique to sex (since most "grooming" is not, in fact, based solely thereon: how could it be, if convincing you to have gay sex was the hidden goal?)- indeed, the entire point of "grooming" is to make someone do something sexual they do not want to do by psychological tricks that work on those without the self-confidence to resist them- I can only have the elementary schoolboy understanding of why the gayness is bad. Occasionally, I see "well, you can't raise kids with two dads", which is trivially true but similarly taken for granted, and every single relationship failure mode claimed unique to gays are also failure modes when straights do them.

So I notice that I am confused about why sex is magically special, why having a bad sexual encounter is a life-ending event (outside of the sociobiological need/instinct to pretend that it is). And without that understanding I can't pass the Turing test, but if "peepee in but = bad" gets me most of the way there, should I continue to believe there's anything deeper?

Both are the opposition. Does it matter that for the trans it's egg cracking and for the homosexuals it's grooming acceptance / pride? Not really, for both it's indoctrination into sexual degeneracy. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that there are differences other than degree or semantics. Certainly were we to parse out all of the various degeneracies or comorbidities and plot them on a venn diagram for any individual in this cohort there would be much overlap for those on this spectrum of degeneracy.

In the same sense it does not matter you're a balloon fetishist but don't pop them and think the balloon poppers are not true looners.

It may matter in some intra-sexual degeneracy hierarchy but for those on the outside the inner political drama of quarreling foreign tribes is of little consequence, all are the enemy.

A community the gay movement has had ample time to distance itself from, and has, instead, done the opposite.

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