site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   23630 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was going to write a post about ripples in the pond of social sciences but plans are on hold due to a happening. Shooter kills one civilian and cop in Montreal outside a Hilton.

Officers were responding to a report at 11:35 a.m. of shots fired and a gun protruding from an upper-floor window at a hotel in the Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood when they encountered a gunman on the ground and exchanged fire, Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher said at a news conference. Dagher said the shootout took place outside a Hilton. The video indicated that the location is the Hilton Garden Inn Montreal Midtown.

Robots Sources say that "the headquarters of Aylo (the parent company of Pornhub) is located in the Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood of Montreal, Quebec." That might place this shooter in the neighborhood of Aylo's headquarters to target Pornhub, which fits with the general anti-degeneracy notions in a 104 page manifesto that surfaced. It has been so long since we've gotten a proper manifesto, and this is a proper manifesto (PDF). Broadly, we are reading the thoughts of a man who wants to represent, organize, and better the lives of "dispossessed" men-- with many topics familiar to this forum about men and women in Western world touched upon in the first half. Moral decay, Chad-Stacy hypergamy, and unfair, undesirable, or dysfunctional dating/mating norms. He wants to do this by replacing the capitalist "neoliberal hypergamy state" with communism, won and run by those formerly dispossessed, which would not be quite as common here. Some highlights I saw while reading.

To fix modern gender relations and society he wants to place theories of class consciousness to one side (by no means out of the way) while introducing a new biological consciousness so that dispossessed men can organize and act upon. Put those men to work in a revolution.

So, it may be said that the insurgency process of the dispossessed class exists in two main stages. The first of them is the spreading of biological conciousness to the dispossessed on a massive scale. This must be done because, as we know, the vanguard cannot form effectively until the conciousness of the dispossessed reaches critical mass.

The second stage is the seizure of positions of power by the revolutionary vanguard, and the subsequent usage of their newfound power to carry out the liquidation of the hypergamy state. The revolutionary vanguard should operate in a clandestine manner throughout this process however, not presenting their core doctrine as being the elimination of systemic hypergamy. Instead, they should take on the visible forms of a variety of political movements (e.g. conservative socialism, Duginism, communism, Islamic theocracy) in accordance with the social conditions of their respective areas, while keeping their main intentions either hidden or ostensibly marginal.

It'd be difficult to organize the incel vanguard on a good day, it's hard enough to get men to queue up on video games. To do so covertly, under the auspices of established political movements, seems extra difficult. Our author partly recognizes this, so he offers a stage one insurgent phase. First, pay more attention to women who lie about dating preferences and ruminate on it. Second, self-improvement ("body purification") but no weight lifting, because it takes too much time, is a bourgeois scam, and sports are suspect as well. No distraction from the revolution. After self-improvement there are a few paragraphs reminding future revolutionaries to avoid rap music:

I will say that there is one form of music in particular which is and always shall be absolutely unacceptable for any self-respecting insurrectionary of our cause to listen to. This is so-called ‘rap’ music, which is unfortunately the most popular music in the west at the time of this writing.

Finally, become an insurgent, which means killing certain people identified later in the document. In short, he thinks the insurgents should kill pretty much everyone in a position of power or wealth including influencers of all stripes. That makes sense, reforming society and all. He also thinks all the drug dealers, gangsters, and so on should be liquidated. The author features many inspirational quotes by Bolsheviks, as well as other rabble-rousers such as Ulrike Meinhof and Robespierre. Following the insurgency comes the revolution.

The essential political conditions of a society in which capitalism/liberalism, and thereby, hypergamy itself, are not part of the established order of things, have mostly already been laid out by Marx, Engels, and others in works such as The Communist Manifesto. In my view, the most important of these basic conditions are:

The full abolition of private property,91 without compensation, and the subsequent nationalization of this property.

  • Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, with the establishment of a central bank and a planned economy.
  • The establishment of state control over the means of transport and communication

No mention of government issued gf's. I believe the hope it won't be necessary, though I don't think the author would be opposed.

To make monogamy prevalent again, one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income. One of the ways that this can be done 91 Private property as in bourgeois private property, and not personal property. 95 gradually, without using too much force, is to simply quietly start introducing robots into female workplaces, as robots will easily be able to perform the sedentary and easy jobs that females overwhelmingly prefer.

Without an income of her own, and without unlimited access to an unlimited number of potential mates, the female will simply need marriage in order to live, just as she once did; and thus she will engage in monogamy willingly. With the new order having introduced robots to replace the vast majority of female workers, the remainder of female workers may then be removed from their workplaces through some legislation that can be quietly passed and enforced on ostensibly mundane pretences, and this will serve to make the male-dominated fields free of what few females are in them or should wish to enter them.

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we? This is boring social engineering in the context of the manifesto which drifts into more fantastical theory, like the cyborg-augmented "extraordinary branch" of the new state to "augment both the bodies and minds" as a kind of Stasi/special forces mixture. Did he forget to mention total war or eternal struggle? No, of course not.

Now, regarding the question of internationalism, it should be said that wherever capitalism survives, the hypergamy state survives, and wherever the hypergamy state survives, it can spread. Therefore we must not allow any liberal or capitalistic enclave, no matter how small, to remain in existence after we take power.

I rate the manifesto 6/10 with significant points given for effort in the context of modern manifestos. Points deducted for my personal revulsion to revolutionary Bolshevism, communism, tangents, and reddit posts. He shares a vision that I don't share with solutions I consider disastrous and/or unrealistic, so I could be unfair. Also, a neoliberal hypergamy state theory is not anywhere as novel or cool as the anarcho-primitivism based vision of Ted K. As an expression of deep frustrations in an atomized world I can understand, though I really think he should have made some money, bought some land, worked it, and entered the BAP-sphere with a Substack via Starlink.

EDIT: "I will go over this methodology briefly here, but for a more complete look at it, see my work The Smile of the Dispossessed; or, Further Instruction on the Implementation of Terror." All I can find by the first title is gay genre fiction, and I get no hits on the latter by a Seth Hatfield or anyone else. AI assisted hallucinations?

I read (glanced over and noted the arguments) the manifesto, and it leaves me with an awkward feeling.

Basically the guy is pretty much correct on the pure factual level about everything he's seeing.

Its clear to me that he has directly experienced the modern, toxic dating pool/culture, and was probably caught between the impulse to adapt to it as it exists, or to lash out against it as an unfair, unsustainable, unhealthy artifact of modern culture.

The fact that he analyzed it with lefty-coded language is interesting but doesn't add much insight.

I find his ultimate methods abhorrent, unjustifiable and ineffectual.

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome. Solving the problems he identifies requires coordinated efforts.

So I'll keep my points brief:

I've pointed out how Male Grievances are almost never given any legitimate airing in mainstream publications. Indeed, it is exceedingly rare for a male writer to get to publish a piece on gender issues at all!

As you noted, Men are not allowed to organize around their own interests as a gender.

No politician ever voices male grievances as part of a policy platform.

So as this guy found, if you have not built up a large following a la Clavicular, your concerns will never get heard, your voice will never raise above the din of social media. You functionally do not exist.

And the one mainstream figure who was willing to voice these concerns was Charlie Kirk, and he got murdered by a lefty.

Oh, and add on that Lone wolf shooters like Luigi Mangione can garner significant female attention.

A lot of guys will connect the dots thusly:

"I have no real hope of getting a wife and happy family in my lifetime. I have no political representation. Nobody will listen to me if I speak out myself. No publications will ever stump for my concerns. I can't organize with other males to advocate for my interests, and if I DO become famous and popular whilst speaking out, I can just be killed in cold blood. However, if I do enough damage and spill enough blood, suddenly I have people paying attention to me... and if I survive I might see increased female attention to boot. Worth a shot."

Something something burning down village to feel warmth.

So my ongoing concern is that we're going to see a serious uptick in young male crashouts that involve (attempts at) mass killings or destruction, many of which won't be as thoughtfully targeted as this one.

Quoth me:

What do you think happens if a generation where an actual majority of the men don't even believe in gender equality achieves political power?

Implement some solutions now to correct course, or I'm genuinely afraid for how the Zoomers will end up addressing this problem that, from their perspective, stole their future.

This guy was a 25. A Zoomer. The concerns he puts forth in that manifesto are WIDELY HELD amongst Zoomer males.

And these Zoomers are NOT BEING OFFERED A BETTER PATH FORWARD in the status quo.

Solve for Y chromosome.

This had zero effectiveness in moving the needle on any cause he was pushing; he could have just as effectively taken a dump and made an MRA sculpture out of it.

On the systemic level, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. But they are pointed at something universal and timeless; fair or unfair as they are, they aren't changing now, tomorrow, or a thousand years in the future. The male sex will never be considered a victim sex or a sex worthy of public consideration. That's simply descriptive, not prescriptive.

That doesn't mean policy can't improve things for men, but it can't be on that basis. Get rid of credentialism; don't flood domestic markets with relative low wage competition; end the fad of preferential hiring of women for entry level positions. You can make arguments for those without asking people treat men as a victim sex; do that instead.

On the personal, non-systemic level, he will ironically probably receive orders of magnitude more romantic attention from a certain (unstable, disturbed) minority of women now, though he won't be able to take advantage of it.

This won’t work because even the majority of moderate, normie-adjacent leftists have been exposed to lots of 3rd wave feminist messaging and are now wise to this tactic. They will dismiss this narrative as loser-coded and claim that instead of being motivated by noble ideals of meritocracy, legal equality and civic nationalism, you just want to advantage shitty, entitled, reactionary and sex-starved garbage human males because you see them as your anti-feminist ingroup.

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome.

Spend 10% of what US college degree costs to go live in the Philippines for a year or two and marry a Filipina hottie? He should have definitely at least tried that first.

You don't want to do this. It doesn't end well.

Only for foreign guys who marry the female equivalent of Chad. Guys move half way across the world for a "traditional wife" and then are shocked when marrying some girl they met in a bar ends in tears.

Could you elaborate a little? I can hypothesise some issues, but I have no direct exposure.

Seems like a big upgrade on “impotent terrorism and/or suicide by cop.”

As you noted, Men are not allowed to organize around their own interests as a gender.

The example to prove the rule: https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2068603499516989781

Rupert Lowe's candidate pulled <10% of the vote in Makersfield and I think Restore has similar numbers nationally. The only time I've seen a political candidate explicitly flag men's issues like this and it's the "call me racist, I do not care; they all have to go back" one.

And the one mainstream figure who was willing to voice these concerns was Charlie Kirk, and he got murdered by a lefty.

Has the "death of the author" already kicked off merely a year+ later? Kirk was not killed for being an MRA he was killed for being a trad conservative influencer and particularly for being anti-lgbtq+. Any man that looks at this as "I can't become famous and speak out about men's dating woes or I'll be killed" is delusional. Your histrionics about this are actively a detriment to people taking men's problems as a class serious. There are a whole host of old MRA folks still around and kicking: Peterson, Farrell, Elam, Straughan, Pizzey, Hoff Sommers, etc. Nobody is killing MRAs for advocating for men.

Whilst I'd agree with the sentiment that Charlie Kirk's anti-trans stuff was most likely the thing that motivated his assassination, the polarization around him and him being treated like the antichrist by people on the left side of the Aisle was more a gestalt of his entire collection of opinions IMO

Its clear to me that he has directly experienced the modern, toxic dating pool/culture, and was probably caught between the impulse to adapt to it as it exists, or to lash out against it as an unfair, unsustainable, unhealthy artifact of modern culture.

Yeah, but he was only 25 (if the reports I'm reading are correct) and a guy whose first impulse when faced with problems is "grab guns, plan out mass shooting" is not - and I may be wrong here - the most stable kind of boyfriend you would prefer. What happens if the pair of you have a serious argument, a really bad blow-up, when in a relationship? It can be fixed, or he decides you need to be shot?

I wouldn't imply this guy was bound for a happy ending, or that ANY woman was going to be a good fit for him.

But on the margins, the fewer stable relationships formed, the more you got guys who might have otherwise been able to get some kind of fulfillment from a family who are instead left out in the cold, and MIGHT be pushed into this sort of action. And to the extent guys like this can't even harbor a HOPE of getting a relationship, more of them might decide to not even try, and then the question is what they do with their lives.

They're not bought in to the future of their society, so where should they direct their efforts?

The social technology for lifelong celibacy has fallen from favor.

What happens if the pair of you have a serious argument, a really bad blow-up, when in a relationship? It can be fixed, or he decides you need to be shot?

Also, since when did women, in general, actually prefer 'stable' boyfriends? Recall my point about Luigi getting fangirls. Although being conventionally attractive helps.

Part of this guy's whole argument is that women are selecting for traits like aggression, short temper, capacity for violence.

The social technology for lifelong celibacy has fallen from favor.

It has but they should take another look: https://carmelitegothic.com/

The fifth clip is monk cowboys... https://www.carmelitemonks.org/index.php

I think the women who fangirl over murderers are literally insane. Especially when it's a guy who killed his last wife/girlfriend. Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

But historically there have been lots of guys who never got married, and lots of 'old maids', even in the days before women were allowed work or be independent of a man. There have always been losers in the reproduction stakes.

I think the women who fangirl over murderers are literally insane.

People draw wild, overgeneralized inferences from this. Supposing 1% of women are sufficiently deranged to get turned on by and reach out to serial killers. In the modern media ecosystem, that serial killer would receive millions of contacts indicating interest. Usually, it's more like hundreds (and, notably, only for the particularly handsome; I'd be curious about the more typical serial killer numbers). A cute female serial killer would probably receive thousands.

A vanishing minority of both sexes think like that.

How many cute female serial killers are there? We can't make the comparison directly because women tend to be accomplices, not killers themselves. I can tell you that Myra Hindley, for one, was not getting love letters from attracted men.

Takaoka Yuka got quite a lot of fandom - not a serial killer, but we started out discussing murderers in general (okay, sure, she didn't manage to kill him, so she's an attempted murderer, but it's the thought that counts).

I used to moderate a board for stalkers/fans of stalkers, and there was a lot of love for her there. I remember saying on said board that she probably didn't deserve as much sympathy as lots of them were extending - because while yeah, sure, host bars are designed to hook people into whaling away vast sums of money on parasocial fake romance, and as such getting murdered by angry customers is absolutely an occupational hazard that's baked in, Yuka was a hostess herself and thus couldn't really claim ignorance or innocence of that game.

Not a serial killer, but Casey Anthony got plenty of male simps despite killing her kid ("allegedly"). But that's probably because she was decently attractive and she presented herself as the partygirl slut archetype.

Yeah, I don't get it. My wires may be crossed for weirdness, but not that weird. It's like the women who are the 'other woman' or a mistress in an affair, going online to their own sub-Reddit about how the guy has been sneaking around on his wife and lying to her and constructing almost a double life for five years, but oh noes he still hasn't got that divorce so we can marry, like he promised me back at the start! Yeah, of course he hasn't you dummy, a guy who has demonstrated he's a cheater and liar when it comes to intimate affairs and you think he's not lying to you?

Well you say that..

"Academic and journalistic reviews of these massive files confirm that alongside hate mail, Hindley routinely received fan mail, expressions of romantic infatuation, and explicit marriage proposals from male strangers."

Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

Having someone willing to kill for you is sometimes fairly useful, particularly if you are bad at killing people. It was considerably more useful in the EEA, as @IGI-111 notes.

Yeah, but "guy convicted for violently assaulting/raping/killing previous partners" is not a good bet on "but the leopard will never eat my face".

Well, I was more addressing the "murderer" part than the specific "black widower" part.

Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

Your children inherit the drive and ability for violence which makes them more fit in a setting where this is rewarded, which was most of human prehistory. Evolution barely cares about the fact that you might get killed by the violent partner you picked so long as you can survive long enough to have children that survive you both.

If people couldn't turn off their rational self interest in the service of genetic fitness, humanity would have gone extinct long ago. You can call people who act on their instincts insane, antisocial, what have you, that doesn't change the existence of the instincts.

Guys violent to their partners tend to be violent to offspring as well, and mothers who can't protect themselves and their kids die early and leave no lasting genetic heritage.

It's a bit of a 'just-so' story, and I think the real answer is simpler: it's mental derangement, the same as other mental illnesses. We can dress it up all we like that "well, illness X must have some benefit or else it wouldn't have survived this long, it would have been evolved away" but we can see that craziness has survived over the generations just fine.

Mental illnesses stem from necessary processes or they wouldn't exist. Indeed almost every single one is simply an acute version of a healthy and necessary mode of thinking.

Moreover I think the attraction falls of the same cliff the returns of violent tendencies do in proportion to the danger to offspring. Purposeful killers that these women can talk themselves into thinking they can get on the good side of is far more attractive than indiscriminate low inhibition brutes, but they are both more attractive than a male rape victim, all things being equal.

That's like saying cancer stems from necessary processes or it wouldn't exist. Yeah, cancer is a physical process gone wrong, but it'll still kill ya. Same with mental illnesses - there is no cosy justification for wife-beaters that "oh but this is evo-psych, she wants my violent genes so the kids will succeed, so it's okay if I slap her around and threaten to murder the kids, I'm just demonstrating my genetic fitness!"

More comments

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome.

You don't solve societal problems on your lonesome. You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.

Neither is easy, obviously. If you are of a sufficiently analytical mind, you can't just turn that off on command and genuinely believe that everything is fine. But the other option is a degree of enlightenment that is likely only attainable by the few.

Much more likely then that you just kinda suffer from a lack of romance, sex, and community for the rest of your days.

That said, I think most of this pain will be directed inwards. It is very hard to do stuff in the real world when your need for community is unmet. You just don't have the energy. Much easier to rage on the internet. If anything this will probably just lead to more self harm amongst men, which I doubt society will care much about.

You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.

The third option is you lash out at the system itself. For a lone wolf this won't be particularly impactful.

I mean, Clavicular is maybe the ur-example of "lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all," he's only twenty years old and is clearly depressed at the life he's now 'stuck' in (by his own doing, naturally). This won't hold over the long term.

Where do we go from here?

MY personal belief is that once we start to lose the Boomers, the primary bulwark against political changes in this country, a LOT of political options that were previously stymied will come on the table.

We might be able to limit how extreme those options end up being.

I don't see why women would want the status quo to change though. They benefit in the short term, and the long term damage is hard to anticipate. Especially so when anyone trying to educate about the downsides is shouted down as "attempting to control women's bodies". In a democracy, we do need the consent of both genders for a norm change to work.

It is also not entirely clear to me that there is a better system to swap to. The old one led to what we have now after all, and it seems fairly undeniable that a lot of people used to end up in bad marriages with people who didn't care much about them regardless.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Females attending college en masse seems like the nexus of many issues.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

That's where they incur significant amounts of debt.

That's where they rack up a body count.

That's where they acquire inflated standards in mate choice.

It burns 4+ years of fertility.

In short, they become far less appealing as partners in most cases, on the back end.

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

I could write a manifesto on that topic, but I wouldn't want to shoot anybody to get it attention.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

Probably not (see The Case Against Education). They were already lefties to begin with. Alexa, play the George Orwell quote.

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

So you're saying that they were already indoctrinated in high school?

My thesis is that they're just way more susceptible to virtually any ideological brainwashing, just as the Orwell quote implies.

And college is completely captured by lefties at every level, so, that's where the brainwashing pushes them.

College is in my view a large part of the problem. Social Media and Tiktok is another. Arguably that's the mechanism through which they police each others' behavior once they're out of college.

College is in my view a large part of the problem.

It's a nice thesis. It has the disadvantage of conflicting with empirical evidence, though.

More comments

That's where they rack up a body count.

Then the answer is simple: men should now assume the responsibility that was traditionally put upon women, to curb the sensual appetites of the male (or rather, in this case, female). You should have self-respect and discipline, and gently but firmly decline to have anything to do with hanky-panky outside marriage!

After all, women can't "rack up a body count" without guys willing to be those bodies, now can they?

CORRECT.

My modest proposal there is death penalty for such men.

But people find that goes too far, so I would suggest we simply castrate them, as a compromise.

I've already munched on that bullet.

I think we're in broad agreement here. Complaints about racking up body counts tend to be "but she wouldn't sleep with me, the bitch!" more than "it is shocking that the gentle and modest damsel is corrupted into these worldly lusts, alas".

More comments

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

That's simply not going to fly, for as long as people believe in blank statism. Unfortunately, the belief in blank statism has been self-reinforcing, due to policies under its belief leading to less competent people getting elevated to positions of status and power, leading to less rigor and more nonsense being taught as true, leading to more people believing in blank statism. Unfortunately, the beatings will continue until morale improves, or until enough of society is destroyed enough such that no one has the energy to carry out any more beatings than necessary to fend off starvation for one more day. I have no idea how to escape this cycle outside of maybe pinning my hopes on AI actually enabling fully automated luxury Communism, but that's a long shot.

This is why I've said that if I were to become emperor of Earth, one of my first decrees would be to outlaw all demographic-based statistical analysis, under penalty of summary execution, with all civilians being deputized to carry out this punishment. It probably wouldn't be enough to fix it either, but it seems like less of a long shot than AI saving us.

blank statism

Probably a typo that you made a few times, but also an accurate description of current government efforts to address various demographic disparities.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Should be return to to 1978 as in 1979 women reach gender parity in attending college. I'm not sure people get how long we've had an egalitarian society, but we are coming up on 50 years. So unless your theory can account for the 14 years prior to 1993 as being ok, you should probably adjust it.

My suspicion is that the rise of 'useless' genders studies degrees and major overproduction of women with degrees took off in the 90's, hence why we didn't really get a swarm of SJWs until the 2010s.

Colleges were hives of leftist thought long before then, but that was counterbalanced by there being ample alternative routes for one's career before that point.

Also, look at the stats on women getting Masters and Doctorate degrees to see where the problem became SERIOUS.

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