site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   22267 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 23, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The NYT article is far more interesting than what you've excerpted here. I recommend everyone actually read it.

Modern society does indeed seem very fucked up, so I'm sympathetic to these young women wanting something different. On the other hand, I've seen firsthand that the "trad" lifestyle does not always work out. Men are often just as unequipped as women to start and raise a family in their early 20s.

The grass is always greener on the other side; as always, the trick is finding the reasonable middle ground.

I think anything taken to extremes is bad, no matter what the noble intentions are. Most “failed trads” are the ones who went from 2024 to 1824 with their lifestyle and then get shocked when 1824 lifestyles don’t work well in 2024. The fails that I saw were trying to live a picture perfect version of a 19th century lifestyle in which they dress like they’re Amish, bake their own bread, homeschool the kids, and so on until they burn out. The people who end up rejecting religion tend to be the unbalanced fundamentalist types who want to get everything perfect rather than try to live in the imperfect real world. They’re the ones researching whether potential common things have connections to “witchcraft and pagan or new age ideas” down to whether or not the logo of Starbucks is Satanic. Nobody can live that way because it’s impossible to maintain.

I don’t think that means give up. The traditional lifestyle is better than what we have now where everyone spends more time with strangers than with family and friends and kids are essentially kenneled in schools or daycare for most of their waking hours. But I think there’s a tendency toward treating the project like a game where the goal is to win by being the most traditional person possible, rather than trying to build a real life that works for you.

My kid is an only who started daycare at 3 months old. If she tried to be a trad wife she would be figuring it out from scratch. I bet that's the position a lot of them are in. Toss in a tendency towards perfection or desire to compare your life with someone else's social-media-curated version of their life and you get a mess.

I've seen firsthand that the "trad" lifestyle does not always work out.

I'm always a little arrested by this observation, particularly when it is offered as if in refutation of something. Have you seen a lifestyle that does always work out? If not, then surely this is no objection at all!

The grass is always greener on the other side; as always, the trick is finding the reasonable middle ground.

It seems rather to me that the trick is accepting that whatever your problems are, they are your problems, not someone else's--and are substantially the result of your own actions. Whether your own actions are, in turn, the result of some biological or cultural impetus, is a purely academic question. You can't just opt to take the good parts of trad life while never facing any possible negative results.

(Alain de Botton's Atheism 2.0 TED talk is a benighted classic for this very reason; he thinks we should find a way to incorporate all the good bits of religion into our lives, while keeping all the ridiculous nonsense at bay. It's not a terrible thought, but not only has that not worked out, I would argue that Wokism accomplished exactly the opposite--incorporating some of the worst ridiculousness of religion, without bringing along any of the tangible benefits.)

Have you seen a lifestyle that does always work out

I've never seen someone stop being a carnie.

I'm not sure if that proves or refutes your argument.

Life is absurd, so the base state of humanity is to be a clown.

Maybe it's a dialect difference, but I always thought 'carnie' referred to the people working at the circus, not the performers.

Thank you for your comments. They are very thoughtful.

"Does not always work out" was an inarticulate and convenient shorthand for this basic idea I was getting at: both young men and women should be judicious and careful in adopting a "trad" lifestyle solely because it presents an alternative to modern day degeneracy. A young woman, let alone a teenager, shouldn't expect to LARP herself into marital bliss by emulating a TikToker.

You can't just opt to take the good parts of trad life while never facing any possible negative results.

Completely agree, and that's why some level of moderation and humility is required before venturing into unchartered territory.

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