site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   22541 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 12, 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.

Hence the sad and pathetic proliferation of bolt-on tits.

Well executed plastic surgery works pretty well and there's a huge undersupply of big, perky breasts.

Average guy prefers something like a G-cup which is 8" difference between underbust and overbust measurement and a quarter of guys like something like an L cup which is just slightly under head sized and naturally found in cca 1 in 5000 women.

If you were an evil genius utilitarian and invented say, a virus that'd bump up average breast size from B or C up to a G it'd cause a substantial worldwide increase in well-being of men and only a minor malus to well-being of women in that they'd mostly have to take care to do some back exercises.

Why would you assume that the customer base of online sex doll retailers or the set of AI slop producers is at all representative of "average guys"? It's easy to come up with a model where both strongly select on a criterion that could be glossed as "preference for quantity over quality".

In general, that whole blog seems to be in the old genre of "everyone who disagrees with my tastes is falsifying their preferences or a degenerate, and here is some cherrypicked evidence".

that whole blog seems to be in the old genre of "everyone who disagrees with my tastes is falsifying their preferences or a degenerate, and here is some cherrypicked evidence"

Sure, but it's a bit different when it's an [ostensibly-straight] woman writing it, since the criterion of embarrassment would be satisfied in that case. I have no proof (other than hearsay on this very site) that is true in this case, but some of the other things on that blog make a lot more sense in that light (also, no man would claim garages are useless).

I think the sexual pattern matching function men operate on really is as simple as the article (and the stereotypes) make it out to be: big tits, big ass. Those that don't legitimately do have something wrong[1] with them- either they're running female pattern recognition software against male physical attraction patterns and the only socially-acceptable answer that function returns is "a woman with minimal secondary sexual characteristics", or they're running male pattern recognition software against standard female physical attraction patterns and the answers returned are all just "a man".

Now, I do expect some selection effect because the men who are willing to spend big bucks on a sex doll are also likely trying as hard as possible to pick a figure that maximizes "big tits, big ass" in a larger-than-life way... but that's also the assertion being made, that men who claim not to be concerned about it are not telling the truth for whatever reasons.

[1] In the sense that these conditions adversely affect reproductive fitness.

  1. The image sample result is based on a huge sample of people looking at anime-style erotic art and rating it. Hundreds of thousands of users.

  2. the assumption that 'willingness to fuck sex dolls' is orthogonal to any other preferences someone might have, is .. somewhat brave but not that brave, and anyway, only supporting evidence bc 1) is fairly persuasive.

some cherrypicked evidence

I'd disagree with that. He may underestimate the historical prevalence of cultures where women were expected to be fat, it does look like that was quite common although it's not sure to what degree that was status related. Today last vestiges of this are in Mauritania and that region. Back in the early 1930s many women in coastal parts of Turkey were reportedly too fat for central Europeans, which I imagine meant like 180 lbs or something like that but more conservative local men liked it.

But apart from that I don't think he's unfair or cherrypicking.

Too prolix, yes.

All the anime pictures I saw with a cursory look were AI-generated, though. You could make a more persuasive argument that people looking at anime-style erotic art in general have somewhat representative preferences in that department (though even there I would not be sure), but AI art is definitively only appreciated by a niche subgroup, with the modal anime erotica enjoyer being highly dismissive of it.

edit: I performed the most basic of experiments and searched danbooru with tags 1girl standing. The first page had several images that clearly belonged to series depicting the same character by the same artist, but the second page were all singletons. Of the 20 images there, 7 looked to be in the blog's "E cup or above" category, with the remaining ranging from flat to what looks like a realistic average.

Maybe not a virus, but a vaccine...

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