site banner
PaperclipPerfector  30d ago (text post)   23204 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sort of necroposting here but... unrealistic how? Unrealistic in the sense that the scenario I posit (unarmed and in an enclosed space) is unlikely to happen? Unrealistic in that you disbelieve my foundational claim (that a woman with 50th percentile fitness and 3 years of training can defeat a man with 80th percentile combat skills)? Unrealistic in that you think that women receiving adequate martial arts training is unlikely and therefore it's not worth discussing the rare fights where they have it? Responding to each potential complaint in turn,

  1. If you find the scenario unrealistic, what scenario do you believe is modal?
  2. If you find the claim about fighting capability unrealistic... I admit I can't really provide solid evidence otherwise because this claim stems from fundamentally anecdotal experience. But I would suggest that you would very much enjoy the experience of finding a mixed-gender jiu-jitsu gym and replicating my result for yourself. (I know, that's a really big ask for a faceless internet goon to make, but I would recommend jiu jitsu on its merits even unrelated to this argument.)
  3. If you think the scenario is plausible, but unlikely to happen due to the rarity of serious female martial artists... I would agree. But I say that it's an interesting result because women can volitionally make it more likely to happen. So much of our lives is decided by the circumstances of our birth- gender, race, zip code, family situation, etcetera... so I think it's useful to identify and promote the rare actions that can actually improve our lots in life. I won't ignore the possibility of the worst case scenario, where women do more martial arts and as a consequence overestimate their physical capabilities and put themselves in danger. But as a biased heuristic, i think the benefits of martial arts are so great that even without considering domestic violence, promoting jiu jitsu for women will benefit them... and (though this is a bit of a bailey relative to that motte) the difference in the domestic assault success rate provided by better martial arts training will more than outweigh any increase in the overall rate. Especially since these women would be getting the same sort of paradoxically pacifist inculturation that most martial artists go through, that being, "now that you know how to fight, you know exactly how badly you don't want to fight, so on top of being better able to respond to violence you'll also be less likely to get into it in the first place.

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