site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13335 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're never going to find a single Golden Ticket solution to the TFR question(because, ultimately, there is no single golden ticket solution to TFR), but economic conditions allowing for succesful, established men relatively early in life so they can support a family is atleast a very strong factor in play here.

The hidden question here that few people ask; If men as a whole were richer and more established, would women quietly choose to be stay-at-home-moms or instead go for the go-girl-business-boss path? We really don't know.

On the other hand, we should still probably want for successful, established men early in life, because even if a good chunk of women still go for the go-girl-business-boss path, the stay-at-home-moms may very well make up for the slack if they're churning out 3 to 4 kids at a time.

relationshiplessness of zoomers contradicts the "purely economic factors" explanation.

I can't see how you reach this conclusion. If anything, going by current economic conditions, it blatantly supports it.

I can't see how you reach this conclusion. If anything, going by current economic conditions, it blatantly supports it.

Pairing up is an economic advantage. You can split your rent by two incomes, and it's a lot more comfortable / enjoyable than co-renting with friends, let alone randos from classifieds ads. You can say you're not ready for kids, and just live together without having them for years. Economically it's an obvious boost. These kind of pseudomarriages were the default mode for every millenial I knew.

Ah! I see what you're referring to. I've heard that argument before, and while it works on paper(and certainly sounds nice), it seems as if most current relationships nowadays rely on men being successful and bringing in value before they can occur.

but economic conditions allowing for succesful, established men relatively early in life so they can support a family is atleast a very strong factor in play here.

As FiveHourMarathon said, "If you want to be a general's wife you have to marry a lieutenant." It's unreasonable to expect men to be successful and established before forming a family, and it's ahistorical too. They may have to be on a path to success, but that still is quite possible.

Or historically, for middle-class men, long engagements were the rule. Some careers wouldn't allow you to marry, or put impediments in the way of marriage: can't bring your wife (if you have one) out to India with you, can't marry locals, have to wait ten years to get leave back to Britain and then marry a suitable woman there:

Early marriage was seen as an impediment to a young man’s career and marriage was forbidden in the ICS before the age of thirty and made very difficult in the Indian Army. A marriage allowance was not paid until an Indian Army officer was twenty-six, and it was customary to seek the Colonel’s permission to marry. He could refuse, and mostly did, until the young officer had achieved the rank of Captain. In The Officer’s Wife, an angry Gerald recites to Daisy the military’s informal rule: subalterns cannot marry, captains may marry, majors should marry, colonels must marry.

Others involved lack of economic advancement for the man, e.g. the stock figure of the poor curate waiting for a living of his own before he could marry, see the Pre-Raphaelite painting of the long engagement.

And other men simply did not wish to marry 'early' (before the age of thirty*); there's a fair amount of fiction where a forty year old man ends up marrying an eighteen to twenty year old woman simply because now at last he's found 'the one'/he's ready to settle down since it's time he was married and had an heir or her family consider it an advantageous match where he's financially established, and it's nothing to do with emotional attraction.

*From a collection of ghost stories published in 1927, where the tale is set in 1905, so clearly this kind of attitude was socially acceptable since neither the narrator nor the audience feel the need for him to justify why he's not married beyond "I wasn't ready":

‘It’s twenty years ago, 1905, exactly twenty years, in the winter. I was very hard-working, very absorbed and very successful for a youngster. I had no ties and a little money of my own, I’d taken all the degrees and honors I could take, and I’d just finished a rather stiff German course in Munich — physical chemistry — and I was rather worn out.

‘I had not begun to practice and I decided to rest before I did so.

‘I recognized in myself those dangerous symptoms of fatigue, lack of interest in everything and a nervous distrust of my powers. And by nature I was fairly confident, even, I daresay, arrogant.

‘While I was still in Munich a cousin I had almost forgotten, died and left me a house and furniture.

‘Not of much value and in a very out-of-the-way place.

‘I thought the bequest queer and paid no attention to it; of course I was rather pleased, but I decided to sell.

‘I meant to live in London and I had not the least intention of an early marriage, nor indeed of any marriage at all.

‘I was nearly thirty and sufficiently resolute and self-contained.

I don't disagree. If anything, I feel that this developed habit of women 'waiting at the finish line' is contributing to some of the bitterness men are feeling toward woman who demonstrate this.

Sadly, I have no utter clue as to how one could even go about correcting this, so I can only focus on the one element that could be fixed - IE, making men more successful, earlier.

I don't think anything can be done until the wisdom of "there aren't gonna be enough unattached successful men at the finish line for all of us" forms anew for women.

There are plenty of historical societies where girls could expect to be married to an established man in their teens. Those were age gap relationships but calling them 'ahistorical' is a stretch, they were very common. They're out of style now, I suspect because most women do not actually like double digit age gaps.

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