site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   31409 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I actually disagree and I wonder if this line is just propaganda that millennials have been fed our whole lives.

It seems to be that a large percentage (30%, 60%, 90%?) of gay men truly enjoy being deviant. The gayness is part of their expression of being counter to normal behavior. Many seem to lament the mainstreaming of gayness having taken a lot of the fun out of it. Deviant, abnormal sex is explicitly part of the appeal.

It seems to be that a large percentage (30%, 60%, 90%?) of gay men truly enjoy being deviant.

I'm sure there are some, but celebration of deviancy is often a reaction to being stigmatized. If you're an American homosexual older than ~30, you grew up in an environment where casual homophobia was virtually guaranteed even in fairly liberal environments. Much of the point of Pride was(/is) to be in-your-face in reaction to people telling you to stay in the closet (or die) because you were a moral abomination.

Many seem to lament the mainstreaming of gayness having taken a lot of the fun out of it.

See also: Taliban fighters complain about having to work in an office instead of waging jihad. There's always going to be some people for whom the struggle was a source of meaning and excitement. The normalization of homosexuality means less interest in flamboyantly transgressive behavior as a show of defiance and more PTA meetings.

See also: Taliban fighters complain about having to work in an office instead of waging jihad.

Bro.

I feel their pain.

It seems to be that a large percentage (30%, 60%, 90%?) of gay men truly enjoy being deviant. The gayness is part of their expression of being counter to normal behavior. Many seem to lament the mainstreaming of gayness having taken a lot of the fun out of it. Deviant, abnormal sex is explicitly part of the appeal.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there are a lot of straight men who would be deviant if they could get a woman down with it.

I've spoken with a middle aged straight man who admitted to me he was constantly fantasizing about some pretty out there fantasy fetish scenarios involving his wife, but who knew from the few times he had brought them up that she would never come around to trying any of them. Who knows how many people are in marriages or relationships where they quietly settle for never getting the deviancy they crave?

We often only know about historical fetishism due to (possibly libelous) accounts of rulers with fetishes. Who knows how old some popular internet fetishes were historically? Maybe gay guys are more likely to bring up their deviant desires, and thus more likely to find someone at least game to try them out.

Where gay men have deviant sex with one another, straight men are balls deep in weirdo niche porn and gooning for hours.

Degeneracy finds a way. There's still a case to be made that solo, self-destroying degeneracy is Less Wrong (lulz) than inducing others to degeneracy with you.

Sure, lots of gay men enjoy being deviant, no argument here. But I'm curious how many straight men would be as deviant as that, were it not for a dearth of willing participants. I would hazard a guess that most straight men who've watched porn have watched and masturbated to pornographic videos depicting deviant sex acts that they've never had the opportunity to perform themselves. I would likewise hazard a guess that most men watching these videos would jump at the chance to perform these sex acts IRL if the opportunity presented itself. Like, if you were to conduct a survey asking straight people "would you participate in a gangbang if the opportunity presented itself and there was no risk of contracting an STD or impregnating someone/being impregnated?", I suspect the proportion of men who would answer in the affirmative would vastly outnumber the proportion of women (which is appropriate because... well, you get the idea).

Likewise, look at the kind of shit exceptionally wealthy men get up to (Arab princes, Epstein's clients etc.). You could interpret this as proof that wealthy people are all perverted sociopaths, or that power tends to corrupt; alternatively, you could interpret it as evidence that most straight men have fantasies that would strike the average woman as deviant, and only the sufficiently wealthy have the purchasing power to make their fantasies a reality.

At the same time, there are enough women to maintain the market for their own brand of sexually deviant books as well, yet we don't hear about men who have women waiting in line for a sliver of their attention.

Wait, actually, we do. They are called cult leaders. They swim in poontang. I don't know if having fantasies about jacking minotaurs off makes it more likely that the same woman will join a cult, though.

Hypothesis: Some portion of men we (and they themselves) would call gay are not so much gay as hypersexual. If you want to have anonymous bathhouse group sex and gloryholes, men are just your only option. They are more accurately bathhouse-sexual than anything else and the gender of their partners more or less just follows as a consequence.

For the most part, market forces are such that if you can have sex with men you will have sex with men. In the same way that if you're neutral between shopping at Target and shopping at Neiman Marcus, you'll probably buy all your clothing at Target.

Sure, but that understanding (which I agree is the correct one) would, if adopted, have negative effects on the interests of:

  • Traditionalists, who claim that gayness causes bathhouse-sexuality (this is an instinctual reaction to gayness for a few reasons, plus the New Testament lists them separately)
  • Non-bathhouse gays, where the Overton window protecting scoundrels bathhouse-sexuality provides broad cover for most bedroom activities
  • Progressives, who claim zero correlation simply to spite the traditionalists (most progressives lack the same instinctual negative reaction to gayness anyway [i.e. they're women, or were raised nearly exclusively by them], and it's natural/easy for them to tolerate something that isn't an injury)
  • Liberals, who want to conserve the fact there was a time in living memory when it was possible to do this with women too

Which has the ultimate effect of no group really wanting to be less wrong about this until they're forced by bad luck to address a bad actor.

When was it possible to do this with women too?

Around 1970.

I think you're describing bisexual men. If someone is equally attracted to both genders, but one of them is much easier to grab a hold of than the other, it makes sense to go for them first and then settle for women when you want to get married or go for the more socially acceptable option.

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