site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26994 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.

I think the argument @HereAndGone is making is similar to another argument that I've heard in the past; namely, that of how new technology is ruining attention spans and leading to a less informed populace. The argument against it (as exemplified by the XKCD I linked to) is something like:

  1. There are a lot of people claiming (new technology) is ruining the youth.
  2. They specifically point to shortened attention spans and lack of appreciation for the (old technology).
  3. They claim it is a modern problem, and new because of (new technology).
  4. However, this same complaint applied to (old technology), which means it is unlikely that (new technology) is actually that ruinous, and more likely that nostalgia is talking.

The statement that I believe @HereAndGone to be making is something like the following:

  1. There are a lot of people claiming that women being educated has ruined them as partners.
  2. They specifically point to feminist theory and women preferring to be "pumped and dumped" over long term relationships as a result.
  3. They claim this is a modern problem, and that going back to 1960s standards would solve it.
  4. However, these same complaints were being made in 1905, which means its unlikely that it's feminist theory that is that ruinous, and more likely that nostalgia is talking.

For what it's worth, I do not necessarily agree with @HereAndGone, but it is a perfectly acceptable argument. If I was making an argument against it, I'd state something like the following:

  1. Young women, like young men, are kind of stupid; especially around romance and dating, it is way too easy to think with your...hormones...instead of your head.
  2. Women tend to be more attracted to men who have a strong sense of direction towards what they want, versus the physical appearance men prioritize; this leads to them choosing partners who are more confident.
  3. However, because of #1, they often end up attracted to people who will not provide them with what they are looking for; for example, someone who is extremely successful will have many women attracted to them, so will not feel the need to commit. Someone who is less successful, but extremely confident, will often end up in conflict with them (whether physical or via not meeting their needs) by putting themselves first, and treating the woman's affection as "owed" to them.
  4. As a result, women end up in circumstances where their relationships reflect extremely negatively on men, as the selection effect of the men they go for shows them only extremely negative traits (this is where claims of "All men are like that" come from).
  5. Men who observe 4, but struggle to obtain a partner themselves, treat it as a symptom of feminism - whereas it's actually the other way around, feminism is a symptom of the above.
  6. And the reason that this has become more of an issue recently is not that women were educated; the reason is that as a society, we removed a lot of the guardrails around relationships for both men and women. In the past, women would often be safeguarded by male family members, who (in an ideal circumstance) would prevent men who are looking to exploit the woman from furthering the relationship, and (in the worst case scenario) would trade the woman off as a pawn for connections or friendship or wealth or whatever.

(Before anyone accuses me, a man, as being too on the side of men - I'll claim that there is an equivalent for men who choose partners just based on looks, and end up hating them once those looks start to fade).

It isn't unreasonable to look for solutions; however, going back to 1960 or whatever won't actually solve the problems. I'm also not a huge proponent of giving other people control over my life, so I kind of don't want to go back to #6 either. It's a tricky problem, and one we're not going to solve in a Motte comment (but it's fun to try!).

That is roughly the argument that I assumed they were imagining in their head. I actually remembered that xkcd when I saw their comment.

They could have made this argument. I partially agree with this argument. But they didn't actually argue this. They vaguely implied it in an overly sarcastic way with no supporting arguments or evidence or discussion of the actual parallels. You can figure out what they believe, but not in a way that allows rebuttal or reasoned response because they didn't actually make any specific arguments that you can pin down and respond to. This sarcastic sniping with vague allusions to real arguments that only convince people who already believe them is how the culture war is typically waged everywhere else across the internet, and is precisely what this place is designed to avoid.

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