site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   31582 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 2, 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.

I think the biggest difference is male aggression toward women is usually physical while female aggression towards men is usually social, most notably attempted social ostracization. Women attack men's social bonds in ways that men don't attack women's, thus leading to this asymmetry.

True. In the years since I’ve discovered that when online dating, I get posted on private Facebook groups for women. My ex then shows up to talk mad shit including completely fabricating scenarios that didn’t happen. Social ostracization in action.

There's also the fact that women are better about maintaining relationships, planning group outings, etc., so that she usually "gets" most of their mutual friends in the break up (Managing the social calendar is traditionally the woman's domain in a relationship). Most of them were probably her friends first anyway, since she was more likely to maintain a large group of friends after leaving school.

Because men tend to have fewer close friends and recieve less emotional support in general than women, break ups also tend to be more traumatic. It makes sense men associate being single with loneliness more than women. If you're a stereotypical man who has oursourced the work of maintaining his social life to his wife for a decade, single life is going to be a lot more lonely for you than for her.

Part of me thinks there should be such a thing as social/emotional alimony. Shared friendships are essentially a valuable and unrecognized marital asset, regardless of who "earned" them.

If you're a stereotypical man who has outsourced the work of maintaining his social life to his wife for a decade

I love how we frame women controlling their partners' social lives as a burden while when men do it to their partners it is framed as abuse.

If a woman was happy with outsourcing the work of maintaining her social life to her husband, then most people wouldn't call that abuse.

Isn't it amazing how "happy" people can be when they do what their abuser wants rather than defying them?

I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you state it clearly please?

Men submit to their partner's control over their social lives to keep the peace. "Happy wife, happy life". They are "happy" not because they are grateful their wives are taking on this "burden" for them, but because submitting to their wives' control in this regard avoids conflict. Men are expected to give up their social lives and prioritize their wives.

Oh is that so? It's the first time I am hearing this view. I thought the typical view is that men don't put as much effort into socialisation since they are not raised to do that and their social lives are enriched by their female partners, so they are happy to have their wives handle all the busy work required like doing all the planning, etc. I thought "happy wife, happy life" was a saying for other minor disagreements. I know that I certainly will be happy to let someone else put the effort in for me as someone who doesn't socialise much.

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