site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   35557 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.

If one considers the same overall phenomenon from what I assume is women’s usual perspective, I’m sure one can’t help but roll the eyes at the recent discussion on Aella’s degeneracy, for example. Shaming and punishing e-thots can only work when alternative life paths are broadly accessible for average women.

The norm of enforced monogamy (heh) in the old days of Christian patriarchy (heh) basically functioned as a life insurance policy for women. Someone was surely going to marry each woman, with a few extreme exceptions, no matter how stupid, ugly or fat she was. The same path for heterosexual women today, on the other hand, is largely up to chance and luck, something that is pretty much optional – it may happen and may work out well, but there’s a significant probability that it won’t. Just listen to women’s usual complaint about men, which is usually that attractive men refuse to commit to an exclusive relationship. Of course we see the massive proliferation of e-thotting, sugar-mommying, gold-digging etc. when the social consensus is that a happy marriage is by and large off the table.

Unmarriageable women in the olden days were a dime a dozen, though- after the convents became selective those who weren’t taken care of by a male relative worked as servants, in textiles(the word ‘spinster’ has a completely literal meaning as well as its other one), as prostitutes, etc.

after the convents became selective

?

taken care of by a male relative

Indeed it's another important aspect of a society where men are generally expected to fulfill the roles of protectors and providers.

A lot of the women in convents used to be there because they were widows or unmarriageable. It hung on longer in the east- where high status divorcees and widows were expected to become nuns even fairly late in the Russian empire- but becoming a nun was not previously something that required particular religious devotion; it was often a last resort for widows, daughters who refused every suitor, etc.

Isn't it more accurate to say that being a single woman carries a lot less stigma and is much more normalized and thus much fewer women are compelled to become nuns as a consequence?

Western convents got picky about ‘only be here if you want to spend your life in prayer’ before it became socially acceptable for women to live independently; it was a counter-reformation change, which, like most counter reformation changes, was later copied by the east because of the need to actually run their church.

And of course convents in Northern Europe were closed down in the 16th century for obvious reasons.

Obviously, convents did not decline due to the growing social acceptability of being a single woman.

Shaming and punishing e-thots can only work when alternative life paths are broadly accessible for average women.

Work how and to what end? I don't think most people calling out Aella are there to 'save' her and bring her to Jesus. They just want her to stop spreading her poison. I'm sure many think it would be good if she found salvation, happiness and peace or whatever, but her not existing as she does today is a more immediate goal, I would reckon.

Your post reads like the blame lies somewhere with 'attractive' men not committing to the women who want them. But chances are there are simply not enough 'attractive' men for these women. A part of that problem, that older societies had solved, was to largely take the choice away from women. To that end I can only roll my eyes at your post. The problem is entirely woman made, maintained and supported. So if women are having a perspective on this issue I'd hope it includes some pretty drastic self critique and reflection to reconcile just where the woman ingroup brain has taken the society that gave it freedom.

On top of that, women can be financially independent. How we can equate marriage and prostitution as the only avenues of life for women in the modern age doesn't compute for me.

Your post reads like the blame lies somewhere with 'attractive' men not committing to the women who want them. But chances are there are simply not enough 'attractive' men for these women.

I’d say women in the past generally understood that they can elicit long-term commitment from the men they identified as desirable partners, and that this isn’t achieved by merely offering up their orifices for use. This knowledge is mostly lost at this point, which incentivizes women to fruitlessly try out-slutting one another in order to pander to the whims of the top men. In fact, even the simple idea that young women should learn how to become eligible long-term partners if they want a happy relationship is largely forgotten.

That's a very salient point that comes from a perspective I'd not normally think from. Though I think it raises two questions: Why was this knowledge and tradition lost in the first place and what good would come of bringing it back?

Women might be trying their best to lock down a relationship with an attractive man but so long as that man is not looking for life long commitment or is demanding sex before taking things any further then any woman not playing the out-slutting game will simply lose faster than anyone who is, no? And this state of affairs can continue forever so long as there are more women looking for attractive men than there are attractive men. Since the men have the power to gatekeep relationships.

From my perspective a part of the problem is still, as I alluded to before, that women have a choice. They could bend to some form of patriarchy and functionally organize and regulate sex in exchange for commitment, as traditionalist social values functionally did for a time, or at least tried to. Or they could have a sexual revolution against these social values and dictate their own bodies how they please.

Now, women have already made their choice. And I think their choice was made before you saw any widescale acceptance of black pilled nihilism about life and the lack of value placed on work and pushing yourself. Exhibited by many men in the thread you linked. To that end I think the chain of causality that leads to many of our issues, though certainly not all, lies at the feet of women having the power to make that poor choice.

so long as that man is not looking for life long commitment or is demanding sex before taking things any further

Then he's not relationship material.

That might be true but I'm not sure what that changes.

It changes everything. If he's unavailable for long-term commitment, he's no longer a potential catch for women who want that.

Yet they still try.

I have heard that women are far too picky many times- but when the complainant is herself a woman, the complaint is usually ‘ok, men don’t act like protagonists in a romance novel, because men are real people and not fictional characters’ and not ‘ok there are only so many 6’5 self made millionaires to go around’.

There's plenty of men who are up for marriage in the giant "unattractive" bucket. They can't offer ressources on par with pimps, however.

That's indeed the gist of women's usual complaints: the ones willing to exclusively commit aren't desirable, and the desirable ones don't commit exclusively.

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