site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   30194 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 14, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some of them became single moms, some decided to get into deeper debt for a master's degree, some of them got fat.

Again with the fat, it's always the fat... is it really that much of a dealbreaker?

I think fat girls are sexy af, so I'm biased, and I'm aware my biases are not shared by everyone. But, it can't be that bad, right?

Being fat isn't sexy. It's just a fact. Let's not kid ourselves.

Speak for yourself!

It's not a kind thing to say, but anything over a little pudge is actively revolting to me.

So you see, the gudness of the git gudder matters not, because people will always just reject the message anyway. But it matters not. "Git gud" always reigns supreme in the end, for it is the truth.

I think fat girls are sexy af, so I'm biased, and I'm aware my biases are not shared by everyone. But, it can't be that bad, right?

This is almost indistinguishable from advice sarcastically attributed to tradcons. "Men, you need to git gud, and you need to be willing to marry overweight single mothers!" Boy, what an appealing reward for gitting gud.

Well, appealing for me, at any rate!

(Not the single mom part though. That's one of the few things that actually is a hard limit for me.)

You said you're single. Have you thought about putting your interest in larger women to work?

I absolutely have! I already have bustr installed on my phone.

I haven't actually tried to date anyone in quite a while due to, again, autism, general emotional and life issues, etc. But the intent is there don't worry.

Man, I sincerely hope you don't strike out on an app for chubby chasers. Because if fat chicks have so much brainrot they are shooting you down 99.99% of the time, I'm not sure I want to see the creature you become.

bustr

Excuse me, what-str?

The two most interesting motte posts that shaped my views on the dating world were one by a poster who I don't think posts here any more, who made an argument that the sexual revolution can't be inherently responsible for the male-female happiness gap because such a large gap is present only in the United States and not in Europe, where the revolution happened even more strongly; and @Terracotta linking a chart that showed the massive climb in obesity in the US, suggesting that if you're looking for a woman who does not qualify as obese or overweight, you're limited to the top 25% of women -- who, of course, are interested in similarly-top men.

Both of these convinced me something funky is going on in the US in particular, and that the obesity crisis, as well as general physical fitness (young men don't have muscle like they used to), are responsible for the unique unhappiness of American dating.

is it really that much of a dealbreaker?

If you want kids, its a concern.

ESPECIALLY if you want those kids to be raised to be healthy themselves.

Of course, Ozempic is giving us a chemical solution to all this.

And I am not asking for a rail thin girl, or a muscular one, or even one that goes to the gym regularly.

Just one that actually considers health important and takes necessary steps to maintain it.

It's a pregnancy risk, sure, but, life's full of risks. One of my ex's whole family was fat af, and they managed to reproduce.

Maybe next time before you pass on a fat girl, you could give her a chance for a little while, with the idea of suggesting Ozempic or an exercise plan once the relationship is more established? Just a thought. Could help widen your pool of available options a bit.

Possible. But obesity would have to be her only disqualifying factor.

Oh, did you know there's research showing that obese women aren't willing to date obese men? Even though most obese men would settle for an obese women?

Women are the ones judging obesity (in others) harshly.

Again, why is the onus on the men to settle, here? That's not the source of the asymmetry.

Again, why is the onus on the men to settle, here?

Because female bodies have value, and male bodies do not. You belong to the less valuable half of the human species. We just had a whole ass thread on this.

Although it should be pointed out, said thread also included a post from a woman who said that she felt like she's the one who has to settle, so, maybe the grass on the other side isn't as green as you think it is.

Because female bodies have value, and male bodies do not. [Men] belong to the less valuable half of the human species.

I get the underlying sentiment, but this is such an overextension of the concept that it's almost backwards. Yes, a woman can be literally brain dead and still fulfill her biological function, but in all areas except reproduction and survival in starvation-times, a male body is more useful than a female body—the value of literally doubled upper body strength and 1.5x greater lower body strength at base cannot be ignored. Add on top the other advantages of the male form (generally better grasp of logos, less susceptible to pathological emotionality, peeing your name in the snow), and it's apparent why men are universally considered the default sex.

Men are the ones writing long screeds on the internet about how they can’t get laid. Women aren’t. (Or when they do, it’s because none of the available options are quite good enough.)

This is not a random coincidence. It’s rooted in a biological asymmetry.

That’s all it means.

The women are videotaping themselves ranting on TikTok about how they can't get out of "situationships" and into decent relationships.

Because female bodies have value, and male bodies do not

Yeah. But as the TFR rates are showing, women largely aren't doing the thing that actually makes their bodies valuable.

Whilst men are still using their bodies to do all the work that actually lets us maintain some level of civilization.

Yet another asymmetry. And not due to men's failings.

who said that she felt like she's the one who has to settle, so, maybe the grass on the other side isn't as green as you think it is.

I think that you're kind of proving the point, because a woman has to settle for grass that's less green than she'd like.

A guy has to settle for, metaphorically, starving to death.

The alternative to getting their ideal partner for women is getting a guy they find unattractive.

The alternative for guys is... nothing.

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