site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26961 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

here you are once more taking grave offense like I personally singled you out with my biased woman-hating agenda

You seem to be very thin-skinned about this, as if I did think you have a he-man woman-hater persona going on. Maybe you should work on that? I didn't think you had any particular dog in this fight, other than not getting the point I was making (which was 'look, your ideas seem pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms'), but you leaped immediately to "he-man woman-hater". You do seem to think I am going for you in particular, rather than the general attitude on here around "it's all the fault of women for not having babies the second they reach the age of sexual consent".

Hmmm. Were you being sarcastic there? Don't make me tap the sign:

Look up at the top of the page. There's a rule that's been there forever:

Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

Dr. Smith of 1905 was quoting the science of his day about the dangers of uppity women. We know better in regards to science today, so we think his views are quaint and absurd (women go crazy when pregnant if they're too smart?)

But there are plenty of guys trotting out just as quaint and absurd evo-psych twaddle about the nature of women on here. I'm not going to get into a screaming match if I can help it, but I am also not going to sit and take it like a lady. So yes, I'll mock that which is mockable because it is not worth engaging with on any other level than "this is risible".

  • -16

You do seem to think I am going for you in particular, rather than the general attitude on here around "it's all the fault of women for not having babies the second they reach the age of sexual consent".

I really do just think people here who take a generally adversarial position against the whole site don't really grok that some of us do kinda identify with this place and how irritating it is to have people talk about how "the general attitude on" here is so and so when so and so isn't even an accurate representation of the handful of people they engaged with on some tired topic let alone representative of the general commentariat. So what do I do? Pile onto the push back you're getting with "actually that isn't really what they said" and confirm to you that the rest of us are at consensus? Argue on your behalf to prove I'm one of the good ones?

I really do just think people here who take a generally adversarial position against the whole site don't really grok that some of us do kinda identify with this place and how irritating it is to have people talk about how "the general attitude on" here

My friend, try being a woman on here when there's sixty versions of "yeah the wimmens is uppity and should be confined to the home and maybe don't even teach 'em to read and write". Serious discussions of how society went to the dogs once women got the vote.

I've got 20 responses so far that I haven't even read yet, and I'm betting 19 at least of them are going to be some variation on "you are WRONG because you HATE MEN" and of course good old tone policing, a term I never imagined I would use myself.

Imagine for yourself: it's terrible enough when the prevailing cultural view is "everything is the fault of straight white men" and "toxic masculinity" and "men are to blame for everything". I can sympathise with that! I hate that view myself!

And then I come on here, where at least expressing a conservative or right-wing view won't have me immediately tarred and feathered, and I hit up against "Good, then, gentlemen, it is agreed: women are the problem".

I mean, I could go screaming mad into the void. I could rail and curse and call names. Or I could be sarcastic about how views haven't changed all that much between 1905 and 2025. I'll get in trouble for the sarcasm, but for my part I think laughing at such views better on the whole than vitriolic ill-will and hatred for those expressing them.

  • -11

My friend, try being a woman on here when there's sixty versions of "yeah the wimmens is uppity and should be confined to the home and maybe don't even teach 'em to read and write". Serious discussions of how society went to the dogs once women got the vote.

As someone devoutly religious, I misspent a great deal of my youth arguing with atheists on various internet forums. Often atheists who absolutely despised religious people and blamed us for all of history's wars and genocides and sometimes even wanted me and my kind sent to gulags or similar. It's really not that hard to deal with having a huge portion of a forum despising you, you just learn to develop a thick skin and you separate your emotions from the discussion as much as you can.

Or you crash out, as you appear to be doing.

This is basically like if a black guy came here in our days of HBD discussions and posted some 19th Century screed by a KKK Grand Wizard then proceeded to flame out saying we all wanted to put blacks back in chains. Do you think that would be a reasonable reaction?

To use the slavery analogy, some of the talk on that Motte is like if Mottizens didn't say they wanted to bring back slavery, but spent quite a bit of time talking about how much worse race relations have become ever since blacks became emancipated. They didn't really propose anything at all really. They just implied that it was better before, and didn't really put much effort into why black people might not agree that those times were better.

The common solution for a race realist or HBD believer or whatever who thinks racial integration made things worse but still finds slavery abominable is racial separation into different homelands, which is obviously unfeasible for men and women.

It might be, were it in response to someone who had just remarked about how they looked forward to economic circumstances that would force black people back into chains.

I am slightly amused by all the emotional response to what I said; there's a lot of hurt feelings rather than cool analysis, ironically enough in the accusations that I am crashing out, emotional, etc.

So, anything to say about the Joo-posters, the racists, the tranny-haters?

If a Jew started posting like you do with mockery and derision calling people Nazis (including some posters who can actually fairly be called Nazis), would you consider that appropriate for the Motte? If a trans person served some contempt back at you when you are expressing what you think of trans women, would you be cool with that?

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know what you think here.

I know about the craziness of some trans activists re: cis women (see all the good wishes they express online towards TERFs).

I expect crazy shit from crazy people. I don't expect it on here precisely because it's supposed to be where we can argue out positions with no holds barred (apart from rules around civility). So I'm smiling wryly at all the "you hate men, that's why you say this!!!!" from guys who were swapping opinions about how women should be deprived of personal choice when it comes to romantic relationships, access to higher education, the vote, age of marriage, number of children, confinement to the domestic sphere and other trivial little instances of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I haven't seen anyone accusing you of hating men.

So trans people being offended are just crazy and can be ignored. Okay. But women being offended must be taken very seriously. What about Jews, blacks, and leftists? Just trying to figure out if there is any actual underlying principle to what you think should be modded other than "That which offends me personally is bad and that which doesn't offend me personally is fine."

Lot more women than trans people, for a start.

Mainly, it's in response to guys on here wondering why on earth women don't want to marry (them) and then expressing views which explain why no woman in her right mind and with an ounce of self-respect would marry a man like that.

That doesn't answer a single thing I asked.

My friend, try being a woman on here when there's sixty versions of "yeah the wimmens is uppity and should be confined to the home and maybe don't even teach 'em to read and write". Serious discussions of how society went to the dogs once women got the vote.

Try existing in the real world where a woman with a sharp tongue thinks that using it should cause every man around them to quail in fear and yield. Oh, wait, you do. It doesn't work here. The real-world norm that a man does not push back against that sort of shit from a woman does not exist here. You can snark, insinuate, and belittle, but nobody will be intimidated. Some can give as good as they get, held back (if they are) only by not wanting to be moderated themselves. Others can simply say "This is sound and fury signifying nothing", and continue discussing while ignoring the noise.

The real-world norm that a man does not push back against that sort of shit from a woman does not exist here.

And yet you men are as sensitive as the most hysterical Karen when it comes to push back on your shit views. Now, we could start yelling abuse at one another. Or you could mock my views by quoting idiot ultra-feminists of the past. I believe the 70s are rich and fertile ground for terrible hot takes in that area.

I won't mind it, even if Amadan feels the need to invoke the "avoid sarcasm" rule. I can take joshing!

Raillery, folks. Rediscover the lost art.

  • -14

Where's the sensitivity? The responses I've seen have been right-wing posters flatly telling you you're wrong and/or citing counter-examples, left-wing posters saying they appreciate bucking the consensus but you've failed to make substantive arguments, and then both eventually getting annoyed as you pick fights with everybody and then pick fights with the mods for being reprimanded for picking fights.

Or you could actually just make your damn points for once so we can do discussion forum things instead of shitflinging.

Not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing is people trying to discuss things, and you not "pushing back" but rather simply making a lot of noise and tossing around sarcasm and insults not to be part of the discussion, but to interfere with the discussion.

The real-world norm that a man does not push back against that sort of shit from a woman... You can snark, insinuate, and belittle, but nobody will be intimidated.

Interestingly, comments parallel to this one can be found in a type of internet community quite different from TheMotte for a quite different context.

In fight video-adjacent communities (I know, I know, very classy corners of the internet), sometimes a video of a female attacking a male (especially a much larger one) initiates discussions as to the extent Hollywood #GirlBoss propaganda and the general male reluctance to fight back against a female (whether it be out of chivalrous can't-hit-a-girl instincts, fear of social backlash, or fear of getting swarmed and curb-stomped by eager beaver white knights) have led to delusions of grandeur for some subset of females, overestimating their physical prowess and/or overestimating their ability to intimidate males with their physical prowess per se.

Do you even realize that the fact I am wasting time responding to your three (3!) responses to my one post is a gesture of respect that I fully realize will be both unappreciated and is largely undeserved? Yet here I am. Maybe it will be instructional to others who have similar complaints, if not you.

You seem to be very thin-skinned about this, as if I did think you have a he-man woman-hater persona going on. Maybe you should work on that? I didn't think you had any particular dog in this fight, other than not getting the point I was making (which was 'look, your ideas seem pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms'), but you leaped immediately to "he-man woman-hater".

I literally made the point you are claiming I did not get.

"He-man, woman hater" was, in fact, sarcasm.

I'm not going to get into a screaming match if I can help it, but I am also not going to sit and take it like a lady.

No one has ever asked you to take anything like a lady. You are being asked to follow the rules that apply to men, women, and Martians here on the Motte.

So yes, I'll mock that which is mockable because it is not worth engaging with on any other level than "this is risible".

Many people post things that are arguably not worth engaging in because they are so risible. I often feel this way, and I'm pretty sure everyone feels this way at times. And the rules remain: if you cannot engage without mockery, you should not engage. When someone posts something utterly retarded, sometimes I cannot resist the temptation to respond, and sometimes it's really, really hard not to respond with the derision I think their retardation deserves. But whether as a mod or a non-mod, I am required to stifle the derision, and you are required to do likewise.

Do I? I'm starting to wonder. Was that remark about hoping for an economic crash so women (and it wasn't specifying any particular set of women, rather all women which would include the likes of me) will be forced to choose between destitution (yes, that was the exact word) or 'making concessions to good men' - was that remark 'ha ha only joking', in which case it too should have earned the sarcasm penalty, or was it meant in all seriousness?

First of all, making a joke is not the same as sarcasm. The rule is not "You may not be funny."

And the "avoid sarcasm" rule is not even an absolute prohibition on sarcasm, it is an injunction against using sarcasm in place of plain and respectful speaking when responding to someone else. Stop trying to be a pedant just to rules-lawyer things to suit you. Those are the worst sorts of complaints to mods.

As for whether the poster was serious about wanting women to be forced to suck dick for food (that's my paraphrasing; see, that's an example of mildly sarcastic humor), I don't know, why don't you ask him? But here's my question for you: why does it offend you so much? I mean, beyond the obvious: yes, you're a woman and obviously the suggestion that you should be forced to trade sexual favors for survival is likely to offend you. Do you think you (or women as a class) are the only ones entitled to not be offended by someone's outrageous suggestions? When our Joo-posters go off about Jews, and their physical weakness and cowardice, their nefarious schemes to destroy Western civilization, their hatred of the white race, their sleaziness and bad faith dealings and genetic predisposition to start conflicts with everyone around them (this is not hyperbole, these are all things people have actually said on the Motte), do you want the mods to step in and say "Hey, you're not allowed to offend Jews like that?" I do not recall you ever objecting to those posts. When people talk about how ugly and psychopathic and perverted and delusional trans people are, do you think a trans person would be entitled to complain about being offended? When our white nationalists and just garden variety racists propose that black people need to be controlled and "husbanded" like livestock, or that we should not tolerate coexisting with them, would it be okay for a black poster to be as mocking and sarcastic as he wants to be in response? Or would you say "Hey, you need to engage with the argument even if you don't like it, you aren't allowed to just go off on someone because he offended you?" Or would you just say nothing because you don't actually care when someone who isn't you is offended?

Because we've lived the days of "sex for meat" and that's the damn reason feminism came into being in the first place. Hoping to exploit the misery of others is not what I thought The Motte was about.

Hey, I'd like to think so too. If you haven't noticed, a lot of people here do in fact want to exploit the misery of others. I think this is bad and those people are bad people. What's your point? The mods should start forbidding meanbad opinions? You seem to want an axial shift in how moderation works here, and while that might be worth discussing, it's hard to take the proposal seriously when, again, you only seem to notice when it applies to you personally.

How about if someone cheered on the idea of AI putting all the guys on here out of work, so that they will have to bend the knee to employers and scrabble for former white collar jobs with the cheap imported labour, which drives down salaries and workplace conidiations? Suppose I reacted to someone talking about their fears for their late career with "serves you right, you had it too good all along, now you will have to agree with whatever an employer demands of you if you want any kind of job"?

People have said more or less this, in different ways. Depending on how you say it: "Hah hah, you deserved it!" is definitely going to get modded. "Well, I think is a good thing actually and too bad that you're the one suffering for it but" is in fact allowed, even if the person suffering for it usually does angrily report the post.

Hoping for bad things to happen to those you disagree with is fine and will not get me into trouble, just so long as I avoid sarcasm, see Amadan's mod decision.

You are misunderstanding the difference between "fine" in the sense of conforming to rules and "fine" in the sense of moral judgment. Do I think it's "fine" to hope for bad things to happen to those you disagree with? No. See above. I think that is a base and vile impulse (not that I haven't felt it myself) and should be discouraged, but that's between you and your conscience and/or your priest/therapist/AI waifu/whoever.

Are people allowed, here on the Motte, to express the hope that bad things will happen to other people? Well, we moderate on tone, not on substance. If you can write an effortpost sans sarcasm on the topic, yes, though you might be narrowly navigating between the Scylla and Charybdis of boo outgrouping and inflammatory claims without evidence. Many Joo-posters crash here, trying to express that Jews are vermin and we should exterminate them without actually saying "Jews are vermin and we should exterminate them." And likewise, as I told you, some of our incel-posters have gotten rapped for not being able to prevent their seething contempt for women from bleeding onto the screen.

But hey, if that's the direction you want to go, some of our more artful accelerationists and doomers mostly get away with it.

Do you even realize that the fact I am wasting time responding to your three (3!) responses to my one post is a gesture of respect that I fully realize will be both unappreciated and is largely undeserved?

I didn't read all your response because, frankly, too long. Sorry about that (and yeah, genuinely sorry).

You don't have to respond to me. I won't take it as lack of respect. Ignore it after you've had your say and imposed the punishment, if any. Don't get hung up on it, brother!

You seem to be very thin-skinned about this

Pot, meet kettle.

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