site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   25289 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 15, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Did you look at the link? Men and women are both socialising less. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. What about that fact do you doubt?

Nothing at all. But socializing more won't change the basic mathematics of the situation. No matter how much people socialize, there will never be enough 8/10 men to marry all the 5/10 women who want to marry them.

Yes I disagree, the birth rate collapse started around 2010, before then, birth rates were going up. Has the world really changed that much in 15 years? I'm not talking about the 1950s here.

I think you are completely 100% wrong on this point. Here is a graph from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6901a5.htm

Birth rates in the US have been on a downward trend since the late 1950s. There have been small ups and downs, but the biggest drop (by far) took place between 1960 and 1980.

And yes, the world has changed a lot since the 1950s.

I'm not sure you can describe women's dating preferences as hypergamous. Women prefer men who are taller and earn more than they do, and men prefer women who are younger and more beautiful than they are. In that sense, both men and women are 'hypergamous' but about different things.

What I mean by "hypergamous" is that man is a naturally tournament species just like most other species of apes. In the absence of economic and social constraints, what you would see is that the top roughly 20% of men would mate polygynously with substantially all of the women.

Nothing at all. But socializing more won't change the basic mathematics of the situation. No matter how much people socialize, there will never be enough 8/10 men to marry all the 5/10 women who want to marry them.

Then how on earth did people get married during the Baby Boom, and other periods of near-universal marriage? How was it possible if female pickiness is so strong that the US reached replacement TFR in 2007? 5/10 women do, in fact, marry 5/10 men. They always have and they always will.

Birth rates in the US have been on a downward trend since the late 1950s. There have been small ups and downs, but the biggest drop (by far) took place between 1960 and 1980.

Actually, US birth rates have been on a downward trend since 1800 (in fact earlier, but those are the earliest modern records go). The Baby Boom was a temporary abberation, not the historical norm. But between 1975 and 2008, birth rates were going up. I think it's reasonable to conclude that they would have continued going up if it weren't for smartphones, social media and the internet, so I think it's more practical to focus on fixing the social damage done by those things than by bitching about women being too picky or fantasising about war rape.

What I mean by "hypergamous" is that man is a naturally tournament species just like most other species of apes. In the absence of economic and social constraints, what you would see is that the top roughly 20% of men would mate polygynously with substantially all of the women.

And yet somehow such a society has never emerged at any point in history or anywhere in the world. Even in societies that tolerate polygyny, it is outcompeted by monogamy. That is why only about 2% of humans alive today live in polygamous households.

Then how on earth did people get married during the Baby Boom, and other periods of near-universal marriage?

Very simple: There was much more intense societal pressure on women to (1) get married; (2) refrain from sex/childbirth out of wedlock.

5/10 women do, in fact, marry 5/10 men. They always have and they always will.

Sure, and this phenomenon is most evident in highly religious subcultures where there is intense social pressure to marry young and stay married.

Actually, US birth rates have been on a downward trend since 1800 (in fact earlier, but those are the earliest modern records go). The Baby Boom was a temporary abberation, not the historical norm. But between 1975 and 2008, birth rates were going up.

Exactly how much did they go up between 1975 and 2008?

I think it's reasonable to conclude that they would have continued going up if it weren't for smartphones, social media and the internet, so I think it's more practical to focus on fixing the social damage done by those things

Perhaps, but in doing so one needs to figure out what exactly is the problem caused by smartphones, social media, and the internet. How is it you are so sure that "time spent socializing out of the home" is the issue?

And yet somehow such a society has never emerged at any point in history or anywhere in the world.

I tend to doubt it. There have been plenty of societies in which polygamy was completely accepted and normal. Genetic studies show that your typical person has far more female ancestors than male ancestors.

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