site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13443 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.

Women want to be in combat arms for that sweet combat pay,

I don't think this is it. The push for women in combat has come almost exclusively from female officers. There are to a rounding error zero women in the whole US trying to be enlisted infantry.

Officers want a combat billet for promotion purposes, and for the sweet sweet uniform garland. Bunch of awards you can only get in an infantry unit, and command of a combat unit is huge in officer promotions. There are essentially no women in the whole world who want to actually do the job of combat. Not for love, money or insanity. What there are is wanna-be girlbosses who need to stamp the Infantry page in their promotion journal.

Furthermore, women have an easy out of an actual deployment, because the Army doesn't deploy preggos. When the 11th deployed in '05, there was so many pregnancies in the support units that they had to transfer in eight hundred male soldiers to backfill all the women getting out of deployment. Only one female out of roughly a thousand deployed. And they weren't even combat arms!

Hear me now, believe me later, this is all bureaucratic manouver. There is no cadre of females who will actually fight in combat units. There are only two reasons women want to get into hardcore units, it's either promotion or pregnancy. They're looking for a star or a train.

Ah thanks for the clarification, I've heard women bitch that men get more pay for combat and also complain that women are underpaid so I conflated the two in my above. Forgot that women want the pay without having to work it. Not sure I'd blame this one on feminism as much as shitbirds being shitbirds.

I understand that pregnancy out is a problem in the USN. An ex-chief complained to me that half his female rates get knocked op before any sail longer than 6 months, married or not. Not sure about girls wanting to get a train run on them while at sea, or even having enough demand from men. I still believe the YMCA is the accurate depiction of USN proclivities.

Furthermore, women have an easy out of an actual deployment, because the Army doesn't deploy preggos. When the 11th deployed in '05, there was so many pregnancies in the support units that they had to transfer in eight hundred male soldiers to backfill all the women getting out of deployment. Only one female out of roughly a thousand deployed. And they weren't even combat arms!

Hear me now, believe me later, this is all bureaucratic manouver. There is no cadre of females who will actually fight in combat units. There are only two reasons women want to get into hardcore units, it's either promotion or pregnancy. They're looking for a star or a train.

This is the other side of the coin for the stupidity of training female soldiers. If they deploy and get killed, it's irrational for society. But if, on the other hand, when bugle sounds, female trainees all raise the W card to avoid getting deployed, training them turns out retroactively to have been a waste. It was just a handout for women, no more useful than fake email jobs at a tech company to make the gender ratio look good.

Although I must admit, your and @BahRamYou posts about military women getting pregnant to avoid service does give me a darkly amusing idea. With a universal draft and enough foreign wars, a hybrid woke/neocon managerial state could accidentally create breeders in the name of gender equality.

Universal draft and holding all recruits to male fitness standards would do it, no need for war.

Trust me, they'd get pregnant to get out of a ten-mile road march.

Fuck that in my company there was a guy who faked a pregnancy in basic. The others in his gang claimed he was possessed by a female spirit and would commit suicide (kill him)if she lost the baby, so he had to be on light duties till the baby came to term. Our top hat accepted it and instructed him to be locked in the infirmary till delivery, then he could resume training. As skaters go that was a particularly stupid one, but not the last by any means.

The others in his gang claimed he was possessed by a female spirit and would commit suicide (kill him)if she lost the baby, so he had to be on light duties till the baby came to term.

I'm sorry, what?

Hold on, I think I've watched this anime...

Well, considering modern combat a woman can pilot a suicide drone or a predator UAV just as well. They can also push pencils or work manufacturing jobs if its a total war.

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