site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14537 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 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.

Women are a potent political force but an incompetent military/policing one

But will it stay that way, if a disproportionally male faction wages war against a disporportionally female faction, seeking to reduce them to a state of subjugation?

"God made men, and God made women, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

That works pretty well if we're talking about one-on-one encounters. In fact I endorse it.

But organized violence as a group is FAR AND AWAY a male specialty.

Hence why I said

So expect a LOT of political capital to be expended on efforts to keep males from coordinating enough to actually fight back in any meaningful way.

If we ever got to a breakdown of order severe enough that men are banding up in militias, warbands, gangs, whatever, the advantage will turn extremely against women in general.

@faceh

Men won’t do shit.

@Celestial-body-NOS

Women won’t do shit.

Nothing ever happens.

To add some actual analysis here, I react to these discussions the same way I react to pop-sci articles about how we’re all going to evolve into a race of pale, long-fingered morloks in order to better access our computer terminals: it’s laughable to expect that these completely unsustainable systems are are going to last long enough to make any kind of difference whatsoever.

And as I’ve said before, I think if incel rage ever does boil over, it will probably be sublimated into some other ideological movement, be that fascism, Bolshevism, radical Islam, or radical Christianity.

The #1 best way, in this very moment, to test the willingness of either sex to stop hearts, is to look at the demographics of hunters.

As I’m sure you can imagine, the statistics on female participation in hunting are abysmal, somewhere between 5 to 1 and 9 to 1, and the statistics are almost certainly failing to account for the fact that there are plenty of female-owned hunting tags out there that are actually filled by the man. Yes, this is illegal. Surprise.

The ratios in target shooting are somewhat more equal, something like 3 women out of 10 shooters, but at the end of target shooting, nothing is actually dead.

Now, there are definitely female hunters out, there is no denying that. But, even there, we can try to observe the propensity for violence of each sex. This gets down into anecdotal information, but there are women who can take the shot but are for some reason incapable of doing the gutting and quartering, or if not incapable, vastly prefer that the man do it. War doesn’t tend to feature direct butchery, but it is pretty gruesome and I would consider unwillingness to do butchery as an indicator of an overall unwillingness to engage in aggressive, violent action. Also, if a man could shoot but not butcher, he would be relentlessly mocked by his buddies until he finally did the thing.

Nurses of course see plenty of gruesome things, but for healing and nurturing reasons, which I would argue makes it a much different experience for women.

So women are not taking Samuel Colt up on his offer in nearly the ratios we would expect if the two sexes were actually equal in matters of violence. As a result, my theory in response to your question is that women would mostly do what they have done for all of human history. That is, mostly help out the remaining men on their side with the lighter duties, with a limited minority of women actually participating fighting the fight.

If they win this disturbing hypothetical, they could be anywhere from magnanimous in victory, to as cruel as Comanche squaws. If they were to lose, 90%+ would just accept the new status quo. Women as a group aren’t ever actually going to be treated all that badly.

"God made men, and God made women, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

Equally dead when shot in the head perhaps, but not equally able to get to that point.

Maybe not, but it closes the gap considerably.

Agree to disagree? "Considerably" is vague, and I imagine that it does a lot more work for you than it does for me.

For evidence, I present to you...the entire world's history of physical violence. All of it. Ever. Up to the very present.

Are we still doing the 90's "women can do anything men do, just as well" thing? They can't even match men in Call Of Duty, I doubt either the skill or apetite for actual warfare.

As with eSports, female participation and competence in war will increase with the deployment of the tranissaries.

Trans-friendly feminism is suddenly making some sense.

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