site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15839 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.

I'd say "cishet" and "no college debt" are the unfair ones. I'm not convinced that women have the same "base" strictness of heterosexuality, so in a society that preaches self-discovery and openness in that aspect many who are not religious will likely decide they're above 0 on the Kinsey scale.

Likewise, in the society that assumes that anyone worth anything is going to have a college degree, the ones who don't try will likely be mostly underclass or rural religious, with very few being the ones who are actually financially wise.

Also, not sure what criteria is "acute" mental illness judged by.

And suppose that we agree on a final set of reasonable criteria - how many men, of those who are looking to marry and restrict the search set in such a way, meet a similar set of reasonable criteria? (I'll let women of themotte decide what that would be).

Overall, it's strange that you put the emphasis on

if average women are willing to marry average men

, when your post is primarily on how the average woman is apparently unmarriable.

I'd say "cishet" and "no college debt"

Now now, I specifically gave them a $50k ceiling. "NO" College debt is a pipe dream, I know it.

This ceiling is safe for like 95% of women, according to the LLMs.

And women are less likely to pay off their debt than men are and so be carrying it years later. So its kind of an important factor, men will have to absorb this 'bride price' when he marries her.

when your post is primarily on how the average woman is apparently unmarriable.

Well, I can add in my point that THE SOLUTION HERE IS TO PUT PRESSURE ON WOMEN to actually choose a guy relatively early, and offer some guidance on choosing one that will stick around. And, presumably, disincentivizing those who delay.

Because You also have to increase the pool of desirable, wiling women for this to play out favorably.

But I felt that would distract from the more neutral data I provided.

Also, not sure what criteria is "acute" mental illness judged by.

In my mind it would be less than a "severe" mental illness that is actually debilitating, but still serious enough that it impacts their daily behavior. You can peek and see how the LLMs chose to interpret it.

In either case, you can look at the raw numbers and see young women are showing INCREASING prevalence of mentall illness. Something around 30% for the under 30s.

Its fair to say things have gotten 'worse.'

And suppose that we agree on a final set of reasonable criteria - how many men, of those who are looking to marry and restrict the search set in such a way, meet a similar set of reasonable criteria? (I'll let women of themotte decide what that would be).

Sure.

But I will go ahead and place my bet that the number of men who meet this has probably been steady for the last couple decades, whereas the ratio of women who are marriagable has been decreasing.

See my point above about the pressure being on the wrong gender.

In either case, you can look at the raw numbers and see young women are showing INCREASING prevalence of mentall illness. Something around 30% for the under 30s.

My semi-informed opinion is that this is at least partially confounded by increasing awareness of mental illness as well as easier diagnosis or more relaxed diagnostic criteria. Borderline Personality Disorder was not a recognized condition not very long ago, for example.

I've seen strong evidence that this is the case for autism, and some for ADHD. These people were considered a mild curiosity, and managed normalish lives without classification. I will grant that rates of anxiety and depression have increased significantly in the last few decades.

Edit: Anorexia is a largely culture-bound/ mass psychogenic illness, so a massive increase in incidence can be expected. But even then, most people can deal with a skinny chick with body issues barring the worst cases.

You're not wrong.

And yet.

Mental illness rates among women are drastically higher then men (particularly for YOUNG women).

So if it were merely 'awareness,' why aren't we seeing a surge in men?

So either women are more likely to get incorrect diagnoses.

Or, women have been this way all along.

Or women are actually suffering from more mental illnesses now than before.

These mental illnesses are mostly stress responses to living outside their gender roles. If these 'anxiety patients' were married to a good man who took care of them instead of worrying about earning a living themselves it would go away.

Also if they had their own kids to worry about instead of foreigners.

Yes, and if they had homes to be arranging instead of trying to arrange society, and if they would spend more time talking to God and less to their therapists, and if....

This, but unironically.

(It's been noted that talking to a therapist about your problems is just the modern version of going to a priest to talk about your sins, but at least the priest doesn't ask to see your insurance).

Thé priest also will not spend time validating your objectively stupid decisions.

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