site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   32975 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

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.

Quoting two comments from a Manosphere blog in 2012:

If you've ben following along, since Swift became "legal", she's been riding the carousel with abandon, going through men like water and using them as fodder for her songs. This is the essence of her popularity -- not purity, far from it, but because she writes about her real experiences riding the alpha carousel, and other women her age range (let's cast that net broadly at 15-30) relate to what she is singing very much.

It's hard to call her a slut, really, because she represents the new normal for women her age. Now granted she is far, far prettier than normal (she has truly model-level looks and would have clearly been a quasi-supermodel (or a full-blown one) had she not been musically talented. And I don't think her "innocence" schtick was an act, either -- I think, again, it reflects the mindset of many women in that age swipe who see themselves as being fundamentally innocent yet very sexually active -- which is the way Swift portrays herself.

In short Taylor Swift is the poster girl for the contemporary young woman -- a very supermodel-ish poster gitl, to be sure, but her popularity among her female fans (who are the overwhelming majority of her fanbase) has to do with her singing about experiences that are similar to their own, which has been the case for many of her songs, not just this one. This is the first big one about a ONS with an alpha, whereas the others have been about serial monogamy with alphas, but, as Dalrock points out well, these are really two sides of the same coin, and the former is something that most women who are doing the latter engage in a couple of times (or more, for some).

See, I don't think that the culture in general considers young women who have an occasional "it just happened" animal attraction ONS to be sluts. Nice girls do this, and remain nice girls as long as they don't do it regularly. That is, as long as the ratio is 70%+ serial monogamy and 30% or less animal attraction ONSs, your "nice girl card" isn't revoked. Taylor Swift is still a nice girl, therefore, who has the occasional ONS, and writes about it (just like she writes about her serial monogamy stuff with alpha males).

She's still not a slut, really. A slut is Ke$ha, not Taylor Swift. The threshold for sluthood is very high in this culture, which means Swift can still be a nice girl and engage in occasional promiscuous behavior -- because in 2012 that's what nice girls do. As long as a certain threshold isn't passed, she's still a nice girl and not a slut -- like Taylor Swift. And a huge proportion of 15-30 age women relate 100% to this.

So...yeah. According to the "new normal", she isn't a slut per se.

And of course men never went through a series of women as muses, and engaged in serial monogamy? That's the double standard in action: I am a man of the world, experienced and tempered by time and wisdom, who has loved many women but never been tied down by one. She is a slut riding the alpha carousel.

Men who say such things about themselves rather pointedly don't care to cultivate an image of themselves as dutiful, modest (boring) family men.

Odd that they consider her so attractive. De gustibus non est disputandum I guess? But I'm going to anyway: a big part of Swift's success is that she isn't that hot. She's good looking, but she's the exact level and type of woman where most women within one standard deviation of the median can relate to her. She's built like a romance novel protagonist, like a hollywood version of an everywoman.

I'm not going to fundamentally disagree but I ask you to consider what % of women "within one standard deviation of the median" are fat or frumpy.

A huge portion, that's sort of what median means.

But Swift isn't a Sydney Sweeney or a Margot Robbie or a Marilyn Monroe, or a Britney Spears or a Madonna in music, a gorgeous and unattainable figure of perfection who men want and women want to be. I don't think her schtick would work if she were that hot.

Swift is above average, but at her most made up, she's still built like an ironing board with no sexual charisma.

True. I'll point out though that, to refer back to the comment I quoted, were it fashion modeling that she set out to do instead of pop music, she's certainly tall and slim enough for it.

Modeling is a whole nother kettle of fish on this one. I'd need to tag in Mrs. FiveHour to dissect it properly, but fashion models have shifted from hot to "interesting" a long time ago.

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