site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   28036 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 30, 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.

I don’t disagree with this and that the just so undermines credibility of the point. On the other hand, I do think Bezos deserves to be criticized whoever he marries. He started an affair and broke up two marriages with children.

I think part of the issue is that modernity has removed the vocabulary to cricicize the object level misbehavior so they displace their ‘something is wrong’ to a secondary element

Absolutely! I have had exactly one partner, who is now my wife & mother of my children, and the only thing we intend to change about this arrangement is increasing the number of kids. I have very little understanding for breaking up after being a family for so long.

But the people critizing Bezos aren't even better on that front; The journalist writing the article broke up her own marriage with an affair.

Right which is why she can’t criticize it on that front. So the present moral distaste is transferred onto something else

Or it’s the other way around, and christianity arose as the spiritual justification for this intrasexual bitching, which no doubt predates it.

No, what @iprayiam3 is talking about predates Christianity by atleast a thousand years its the main driver of conflict in half the great greek tragedies as well as the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle.

Yeah that’s what I’m saying, intrasexual competition, gossip, envy and jealousy have always fueled human conflict. Religions then built on and justified that primal pettyness, look at the behaviour of the gods in greek mythology. Christianity is particularly attuned to women’s petty intrasexual concerns, with its emphasis on female promiscuity.

Christianity is particularly attuned to women’s petty intrasexual concerns, with its emphasis on female promiscuity.

I think this is far more complicated a topic than a single sentence can do justice to, but the Christian tradition, as much as it would like to attribute everything to Jesus, wasn't written in stone at the Ascension or Pentecost. Most of the "emphasis on female promiscuity" parts I can think of are from Paul, and were written a bit later.

I'd also point to the context of family matters in Rome at the time: Augustus rather famously enacted some policies that encouraged fidelity and "family values" before Jesus was born (and were continued on and off again with later emperors), and it's difficult to fully extract the existing Roman cultural context from the Christianity that took off there.

Christianity bans promiscuity for both sexes; thé Vice lists in the New Testament condemn all sex except married PiV, mostly by name. The patristics are even more explicit that the only acceptable sex is married, PiV, at least aiming at conception.

The outsized concern for promiscuity is itself female-coded. The general hostility to sex also. Compare the sex lives of greek gods versus your guy and his mom. Or gays versus lesbians. Christianity is basically the lesbian of religions.

If being on the motte should teach any one anything, it’s that men often care about female promiscuity as much as if not more than women do.

no we just have a lot of women and christians.

We have, off the top of my head, at least one male atheist redpiller concerned about promiscuity. Every time he brings this up I ask him why he hasn’t converted to a fundamentalist branch of Christianity and he doesn’t answer, but theres clearly a reason.

Clearly on TheMotte, it’s the men who are writing most of the posts about the ills of promiscuity. (I have specific names in mind.)

That attitude may ultimately stem from their Christianity. But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity. You can’t dismiss it as a purely female concern.

OP’s a woman, so from this single garden-variety independent sample this subject is 100% female-originated.

But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity.

They do, but I would postulate that they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them, than with the concept.

OP’s a woman

Yes but this is a topic that comes up with some frequency and there are certain male posters who have strong opinions on it as well.

they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them

Yes but the point is that they care about it at all, regardless of their motivations. (The motivations are at least somewhat complex and multilayered. Yes at the end of the day it’s really about “all the women should belong to me” but I think there’s at least some genuine pro-social concern mixed in as well.)

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