site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   20080 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 26, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's about how it works when men rate women.

Not the case when women rate men.

I think women do judge men more harshly when it's based on photos, because women are accustomed to "this is how you must look to be attractive in a photo" while men seem to go "I combed my hair, that's good, right?"

First impressions are unkind, but if you're trawling through hundreds of images, things that are small flaws in themselves build up to make choices harder.

I think women do judge men more harshly when it's based on photos, because women are accustomed to "this is how you must look to be attractive in a photo" while men seem to go "I combed my hair, that's good, right?"

I agree. There's a joke that every other man has a profile picture with a fish because that's the only time when a guy asks his friends to take a picture of him. Women are generally more aware of their appearance and asking a friend to take a picture of you just because you look cute or hot right now is perfectly normal.

If a guy tells his friend, "hey, it's overcast and windy today, go get your camera, let's put sport coats on, style our hair and hit the pier, we can take moody pictures of each other and attract girls who are into dark academia by posting them on our Tinder profiles," they will both agree that this activity is both fake and gay, even though it totally works.

Yep.

The whole problem with apps is they've all converged on the "Swipe through cards endlessly" model rather than letting you target in on people you actually think would be a good match (how OKCupid used to work). Plus gamification algorithms.

My last foray into the apps, I FELT myself dehumanizing the people in the photos more as I went. You see 150 different profiles in like an hour, and you get very critical of even small flaws.

There's also the argument that men look better in motion since women like seeing men do things. So a dating app that let men post 5-10 second videos of themselves, e.g. playing guitar, rock climbing, playing tennis to showcase a skill would probably even things out a bit in the attractiveness field.

Have to assume the app companies don't want to deal with policing the content of millions of videos, though.

Have to assume the app companies don't want to deal with policing the content of millions of videos, though.

Social media companies already do this, YT does this, it's not an unsolved/unsolvable problem.

Making a dating app that works isn't an unsolvable problem, OKCupid was pretty effective back in the day.

They abandoned the hell out of that though.

If it would cost them more money and make it less likely people stay on the apps indefinitely, I can't see why they'd implement the feature.

Sure, but the number of videos on YouTube with nudity is less than every other video.

policing the content of millions of videos

so yeah heres me playing my guitar AND THEN I PULL MY GIANT DICK OUT WOOOO

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