site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   35344 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 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.

No, I wouldn't have even pretended. I would, at worst, have sighed a bit at his puns.

To be sure. Just had to note that you hadn't actually denied the allegations =P

All the best to you if you're still on the market.

Haha, I'm now married with children. Because he kept asking me out, more than once, to interesting places, even though I turned down the initial invitation and even gift.

That's a bit tricky though.

You turned him down, even after he invested in a gift, and he kept pursuing. And I don't know what if any signals he was reading that led him to think it would succeed.

Meanwhile, the advice that men would get, both from most women and men, is you have to move on after a rejection, because continuing on is 'creepy,' or is 'simping' (ESPECIALLY the gift-giving), or maybe even straight up stalking or harassment. How many rejections is a man supposed to 'ignore'? How much should he invest before it becomes throwing good money after bad?

There is no good answer. And there's the risk of a woman actively exploiting this tendency in men to pump as much money and effort from him as possible.

This pursuit model of the man slowly, politely grinding down a woman's barriers and making increasingly enticing offers for her time and affection is one that I personally prefer. But it just doesn't work very well when women have many available options, and to continually pursue one who has already rejected you just reads as 'desperation' which is a turnoff on its own.

Simply put, why would a guy put himself through that without some reasonable expectation of success?

Yeah, most of the married people I know met their husband in a fairly small cohorts, such as a church or volunteer group (not rotating volunteers, a specific stable cohort), where that sort of thing is more likely to work out, and both parties will experience negative repercussions if they act badly.

It used to work when you could do this in the context of socially sanctioned courtship. The man knows he isn't being played too hard because no one is having sex with the woman. Women in turn get to get more exposure to a man and test his level of interest commitment. I think it's a W for both sides. Certainly women seem to still like it today (why is Pride and Prejudice still so popular).

Yep.

I said recently:

I think men find it more tolerable to compete for the hand of the 'fair maiden' who is making everyone play the game to win her affections, than to have to face the reality that the maiden isn't so fair after all and they were burning efforts trying to get her to pay heed, meanwhile she's banging Sir Lancelot on the side and was never actually considering his proposal.

Rejection is less likely to convert to resentment when a man is at least 'in the running' for a woman's affections. When he's one of twenty dudes, 4 of which have already banged her, and another 10 have her nudes, its like... what is the point?

A guy being tested by a woman, rising to the occasion, passing the test and earning her hand in marriage is a pretty solid cause - effect /action - reward path. Humans are persistence hunters after all.

But a guy putting in effort, getting rejection, then seeing that the Chad (whom he KNOWS has got four other women on rotation) get the prize with much less investment, well, that's going to sting, it feels personal, even if it isn't.

And of course worst is when the women CONCEALS her other paramores (as they are wont to do) so its only AFTER one man has put in tons of effort that he realizes he could have just used standard pickup artist tricks on her and gotten the sex without the emotional distress.

Having an easily legible, mutually agreeable path for successful courtship solves for all the uncertainty and makes it so much less stressful on men and women, but we've fucking THROWN OUT the rulebook.

The core problem seems to be that the assumption is that the man is trying to immediately sleep with the woman and dump her after. So a man who’s persistent isn’t expressing how inexhaustible his passion for this particular woman is, he’s trying to wear her down so he can pump her and dump her.

Or at least that’s the fear, which leads to feelings of disgust at persistence. All it takes are a few experiences of being used and discarded to make someone put up massive guardrails. Heck, men feel terrible at being rejected and it’s easy for that to become resentment and contempt. Men (not all of them!) are perfectly willing to lie to score, and that’s a kind of rejection, too. A woman I was in love with once offered a friends with benefits arrangement when I told her how I felt about her. I felt terrible.

Dating in the courtship model only works when people can trust each other; when they’re worthy of trust. That’s broken down.

Yeah.

Fixing it doesn't depend SOLELY on reining in female promiscuity (although that's a major factor), we would need to PUNISH male promiscuity, or at least the brand of it where a guy exploits a woman's naivete and leaves her more cynical and closed off than before, because he pays no cost for it.

I'd suggest execution, but the nice compromise solution would be castration.

From "Why We Need the Double Standard" by the Dread Jim:

Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. Therefore we should guard eggs, not sperm. What this means is that it only needs a small number of badboys to render a very large number of women unmarriageable. Thus curtailing male badboy behavior is not going to succeed. And if we restrain prosocial well behaved upper class men from being badboys, the girls are going to get their kicks with Jeremy Meeks and Muslim rapeugees. Restraining male behavior results in upper class women fucking men low IQ men who live on towel folding jobs, petty burglary, drug dealing, and sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriend, men whose careers are not going to be adversely affected by a few rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraint orders. The lawyerette does not fuck her fellow lawyers, she does not fuck judges, she fucks Jeremy Meeks. If we let upper class men be badboys, if we stopped afflicting judges with rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraining orders, at least she would be fucking judges.

The problem is that law and society strengthens shit tests against well behaved, respectable, affluent men, but has limited success in strengthening shit tests against Jeremy Meeks. She fucks men against whom rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraining orders have limited effect, because they can pass her shit tests, and you, even if you have a nicer car and a nicer hotel room than Jeremy Meeks, cannot. Plus the police and the courts just don’t seem to be pursuing rape charges against rapeugees, perhaps because of disparate impact.

All these laws have the effect of holding men responsible for female bad behavior. It is a lot more effective to hold women responsible for male bad behavior, because women, not men are the gate keepers to sex, romance, and reproduction. If you stop some men from behaving badly, women will just find men you cannot or dare not deter.

The problem is that we need to guard what is precious, guard eggs, not sperm. We need to restrain female sexual behavior, not male sexual behavior.

First, we need to change the social order so that the lawyerette fucks the judge instead of Jeremy Meeks. Then we can address the much harder problem of preventing her from fucking either one.

From the comments of "The Reactionary Program" by the same:

One pin can pop a hundred balloons. We have to control female sexuality, not male sexuality.

If you try to control male sexuality, that just means that uncontrollable anti social males father a large proportion of the children.

Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. You guard what precious, not what is cheap.

And from the comments of "COVID Public Service Announcement", idem:

If a thirteen year old is permitted to wander where she pleases, she is going to be pleased to wander where someone can “rape” her. It is not the janitor that is the problem, it is the thirteen year old girl unsupervised. One pin can pop any number of baloons. We need balloon control, not pin control.

If you execute or castrate ninety-nine fuckboys, but miss underclass fuckboy number one hundred, who has nothing to lose and whose high time preference means he does not care about the consequences, he gets to spoil a hundred nice girls.

Whereas if you lock up and marry off ninety-nine girls, but fail to control girl number one hundred, you get ninety-nine happily married wives and one fallen woman.

To end the wars of the sexes, make women property again.

Dude, I know you are a Dread Jim fan, and I think he's actually serious about what he says, but do you realize the world he proposes would be a dystopian nightmare, and not just for women? The guys who seem most attracted to Jim are not trad religious types or pro-civilization vitalists, but incels who long for a world where 13-year-old slave girls will have to pleasure them while they're on their couches playing video games. That's not what would actually happen, and the thing Jim misses is that women are always going to have some agency because we are human beings and the natural state of men and women is to, you know, like each other.

Jim is the flip side of the literal man-hating radical feminists promoting political lesbianism- they start with some (perhaps justified) grievances against the opposite sex, and go down a rabbit hole into a worldview full of misery and the destruction of everything it means to be human.

Every time I see that "Make Women Property Again" essay, I get the same vibe I do from KulakRevolt and his absurd, ahistorical rants making up some mindset about the ancients that they definitely did not have. Even in the most misogynistic cultures in the world, most men don't actually hate women as much as Jim does. To the degree that women were "property," you still saw some actual affection and respect for wives, mothers, and daughters, an affection that Jim and his fanboys seem to think is pussy and gay.

It's not good for you, man.

Well, would you have gone out with him?

Maybe. I'm not sure. It probably wouldn't have worked out romantically.

Well, I don't know what it's like to be a woman, but when I try to imagine that situation I feel pretty turned off. Somewhere between cowardice and whining. Like he's trying to plausibly-deniably get you to initiate.

Anyway congratulations on your husband and family. WAGMI.

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