site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4505 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was catching up on the quality contribution threads for last month (yes, I'm very late...) and I ran across this post from @Amadan.

I found this part specifically was interesting in the broader context of the discussion:

Assuming, of course, that their standards are not too high... You don't want fat Sally the checkout clerk or carousel-riding Cathy, fine. You insist on a 20-something slim attractive virgin who is agreeable and submissive? Hmm, good luck if you're not a 6/6/6. (Or a Mormon.)

One of these things is not like the other.

For men:

  • Six figures: quite difficult to do. Statistically only a fourth of the men in the US achieve this (and of course this assumes that the requirement won't change if all men achieved this).
  • Six feet: mostly driven by genetics and childhood nutrition. And only achieved by 14.5% of men in the US (according to Google).
  • Six pack: this presumably any man could achieve with sufficient exercise (and diet control) though it might be difficult to do concurrently with a six figure job.

For women:

  • 20-something: every woman will be a 20-something for ten years of her life.
  • Slim/attractive (they're mostly the same thing): partially driven by genetics? But still, exercise and diet go a long way here.
  • Virgin who is agreeable and submissive: these are all completely within the median woman's control. As they say, manners cost nothing.

Is it just me or is this scale a bit tilted?

(Apologies for responding so late and in a top-level comment; I didn't want this getting buried in a weeks old thread.)

agreeable and submissive: these are all completely within the median woman's control. As they say, manners cost nothing.

This is untrue. Agreeableness is a largely fixed Big 5 trait, like extroversion. Many, perhaps most, classic women's and children novels are about this. Female writers tend to be more introverted, disagreeable and high openness than average, and are always writing about that experience.

But more than that, agreeableness is a trait with more utility for a woman's parents, husband, boss, and babies than for the woman herself, so it's only worth cultivating if circumstances reward it. Circumstances do not currently reward it in most circumstances. If you've got to work a job on the open marketplace (as most women do, even once married), best not be too easy to get taken advantage of. Also, very high submissiveness invites abusive relationships.

Is it just me or is this scale a bit tilted?

There seems to be a slippery equivalence being drawn between a market being tilted, and it theoretically being easier to do abc than to do xyz. Strictly speaking, these things are unrelated. We have had this discussion before

To summarize:

@faceh contended that there were about one million American women who met the criteria he considered marriageable: Single and looking (of course). Cishet, and thus not LGBT identified. Not ‘obese.’ Not a mother already. No ‘acute’ mental illness. No STI. Less than $50,000 in student loan debt. 5 or fewer sex partners (‘bodies’). Under age 30. Therefore there aren't enough good women for all the men.

I countered that there were approximately 617,000 American men under 40 meet all these specified criteria: Single, Earning at least $65,000 annually, No felony convictions, Exercise at least once a week, Attend religious services at least once a month, Have not used drugs other than marijuana in the past year, Not classified as alcohol dependent. Therefore, there aren't nearly enough good men for even that small number of women.

I picked 65k because it's about what you could make as a Cop/Teacher, or a forklift operator at a local warehouse that's always putting up billboards for workers if you pick up a little overtime. Quite simply, I have trouble caring about the sexual outcomes of men who fall below the standard where they could reasonably become a cop, teacher, or forklift operator. Those are people who are always, throughout history, going to have to accept substandard outcomes.

Now you can look at it in terms of ease of doing ABC vs XYZ, and say that women don't have to do anything to achieve most of their standards. The female standards Faceh set were mostly of the negative variety. Don't sleep with anyone, don't eat too much, don't get into debt, don't get too old before you find a man. While the male standards I set were mostly active and positive: go to church, workout, get a decent full time job. So it is reasonable to argue that women have it easier in a sense. But frankly, I find it easier to lift weights than I find it not to eat Oreos. And I would find it infinitely easier to get a job at the local PD than I would to be "agreeable and submissive" to some of you chuckleheads.

Regardless of the overall market, it's not actually hard for an individual man to tilt the market in his favor. The vast majority of people might be unfuckable, but you don't have to fuck them. If you get your life together as a young man, you will be fine in the dating market, it will very quickly be tilted in your favor and not hers.

I feel like a lot of these population-level filtering attempts fail to capture the correlation between factors and therefore exacerbate the scarcity of certain attributes.

I don't really think the math works out the way either my good buddy @faceh has it or the way I do, chatgpt and grok estimates are garbage, my purpose in the example was using the same tools to show contrary results.

In reality men and women don't filter by these nice lists of attributes. "Don't ask fish how to catch them" and all that jazz. Men for the most part aren't really looking for chaste, demure, young, uneducated virgins to marry in two months; the few that are often have little trouble finding them at church or in high school.

You're missing the underlying point because I was being sardonic. Most women do not, in fact, refuse to settle for anything less than a 6/6/6. Even nice and pretty women!

I do not believe the incel exists who couldn't find a woman, and probably a pleasant enough woman, to be a partner. What they generally can't find is a woman who meets their various standards of attractiveness, personality, virginal shy-yet-freakiness, and willingness to be a bangmaid.

Somehow having standards that may be out of your league is evil and unjust on the part of women, but reasonable and tragic on the part of men.

Six pack: this presumably any man could achieve with sufficient exercise (and diet control) though it might be difficult to do concurrently with a six figure job.

This is the first time I’ve not heard the third 6 referring to inches. Is this a common alternative? 6 ft, 6 figures, 6 inches. Is how I’ve always understood it

Unless we’re talking about a young single female member of some religious conservative subculture (in which case she’s scarcely relevant to this discussion) then developing agreeableness and submissiveness as personality traits is a completely countercultural step for a young woman in the current social reality. She’d have to assert iron will to remove herself from her social circle, basically sever contact with most of her friends, classmates, family members etc. and reject mainstream cultural messaging. This’d entail a level of human agency and anti-social traits most women don’t have. And we haven’t even addressed all the guidance and knowledge she’d need.

Decadent modern society normalizes and incentivizes unhealthy behaviors which erode women’s ability to stay slim: binge-watching streamed material, snacking, drinking, pigging out, being a couch potato etc.

The average women reaches peak fertility and thus attractiveness roughly between the ages of 19-23. It then plateaus out and enters an ever faster decline after the age of 27 or so. We’re talking about a few years only, and those go by fast. You’re not getting them back. Most women spend those years either in college or being newbie employees, usually in a situation where they are removed from the social circle they grew accustomed to as teenagers. The modern world buzzes and spins, the culture pulsates around you, offering a million distractions.

Yeah I don't get this either, America has plenty of submissive virgin white women but they all belong to conservative religious denominations and why wouldn't they? What's in it for a secular women to remain a virgin until marriage? Why would she do that our entire culture is set up against that both men and women are expected to have relationships in high school and university. And while the social penalty is much less than for men make no mistake a modern secular western woman who remains a virgin to long does receive a social penalty from both women and men. Furthermore a young woman who has abstained from sex and relationships into her mid-twenties likely has a low libido or hang ups about sex, otherwise why would she be ok waiting? Men online who want this are just setting themselves up for disappointment.

Men who want a wife like that should join a conservative religion or look abroad because searching for a chaste virgin on the apps is like hunting penguins in the Sahara why in the world would they be there?

Slim/attractive (they're mostly the same thing): partially driven by genetics? But still, exercise and diet go a long way here.

You can diet and exercise to be slim and as toned as necessary, but if you're horse-faced or just don't have that 'current standards of what constitutes attractive' features, it won't help. "Plain Jane" is a term, for a reason. It doesn't necessarily mean "short, fat, otherwise objectionable", mostly "not hot".

Men and women do judge things differently; yeah you'll be 20-something for ten years, but then you turn 30 from 29 and now suddenly you're a hag? Leo DiCaprio is probably the extreme here, but note his rotating list of girlfriends who get swapped out for a younger model when they age out of what he clearly deems an acceptable age range, while he continues to get older (seems he's been with the current squeeze a whole three years! Just another three years to go before she hits 30 and we'll see if the relationship continues or not).

You can diet and exercise to be slim and as toned as necessary, but if you're horse-faced or just don't have that 'current standards of what constitutes attractive' features, it won't help. "Plain Jane" is a term, for a reason. It doesn't necessarily mean "short, fat, otherwise objectionable", mostly "not hot".

In 2026 I'd submit that just being not fat actually goes a long way even if you're a bit mid facially. Obesity and interesting bodymod decisions have reshuffled the attractiveness deck a fair bit from where it would have been 50 years ago.

Consider this please: picture Sarah Jessica Parker from the first season of SaTC. Now imagine her as a fatso redneck woman. Does it not make a difference?

You can diet and exercise to be slim and as toned as necessary, but if you're horse-faced or just don't have that 'current standards of what constitutes attractive' features, it won't help.

This is just my personal opinion and there probably aren't any rigorous surveys on the topic, but I strongly disagree. Skinniness is among the largest components in a woman's attractiveness (though probably rivaled or surpassed by the skin elasticity of youth), and having a big chin or a "horse face" (or, for that matter, large breasts) pales in comparison.

Exactly. I haven't been on a dating app in a few years due to finding a wife and settling down, but a good 30-40% of the dating pool is obese or very overweight in most places. Plainness is a thing but simply being able to see your feet as a girl is generally going to get you into the 7's tier in the modern dating market if you're just a mid. Also modern medicine/surgery/makeup means a lot of the stuff that'd mark you as 'plain' 100 years ago has been reasonably combatted in modernity whilst it's comparatively difficult to hide obesity in person.

You say that now, while surrounded by fat women, but clearly in times and places where most women were thin, they weren't all equally attractive.

Indeed. I have commented on this before:

Maybe women now do have ridiculous standards. But so do men.

Women's marriage standards are "six feet, six figures, six inches." Men's marriage standards are "teenage virgin". These are not the same. Every woman was a teenage virgin once (modulo the few who got broken in as lolis). Most men never meet the three sixes. There isn't a possible world where most women get what they want (becoming the exclusive wife of a top man); there is a possible world where most men get what they want, and we lived in it from the abolition of polygamy until the sexual revolution.

Never forget what they took from you.

And:

Yeah, great post. If you want a hot, relatively chaste, young, smart right-leaning woman, that’s not impossible, but you better be the equivalent of that as a man, namely a successful, attractive, charming, relatively young guy who probably has similar values, which in the case of chastity is likely some kind of religious conservatism. Young Mormon men seem to have no issue marrying chaste(ish) pretty blondes who will vote for Romney and deliver 3-4 children, because that’s their milieu. Too often some chubby suburban secular engineer whose primary hobbies are video games and online political discussion thinks he deserves the same.

The fact that you think these are equivalent requirements shows how ridiculously lopsided the sexual marketplace is against men. All a woman needs to do is be young and chaste, which is something every girl was at some point, and vote for a party that half the country supports. Meanwhile, a man who has spent decades studying and working to become an engineer or a lawyer is told "whoops, sorry, that's not enough, you also need to have interesting (to women) hobbies, be physically fit, and have a handsome face; I'm sure you will find time and energy to do all while you are working at a ridiculously demanding intellectual job, and also you better get all of that done way before you turn 35 because otherwise the idea of you marrying a 23 year old is just creepy!"

In other words, every aspect of a man's life, from his career to his hobbies to his body, must be optimized for attracting women, and it is no one's fault but his own if he fails.

"Women don't care about your struggles, they wait at the finish line and fuck the winners." -- Richard Cooper, The Unplugged Alpha

I know it's tempting to go meta and do some kind of both-sides moral equivalence thing here, but I think that's just wrong. Female sexuality is fundamentally stupid and evil in a way that male sexuality simply isn't.

I don't think wanting a harem of hot nubile young women is more stupid or evil then wanting one hot guy to commit to you. Also I don't think that most modern western men actually want a teenaged virgin. Hot young woman sure, but most men these days are not that into virgins. Nor commitment part of the what they took from you is a family plenty of men and women don't want kids these days and judging by the number of single moms with dad nowhere in the picture , rampant among the lower classes plenty of men don't care much about their kids or families.

The fact that you think these are equivalent requirements shows how ridiculously lopsided the sexual marketplace is against men. All a woman needs to do is be young and chaste, which is something every girl was at some point, and vote for a party that half the country supports. Meanwhile, a man who has spent decades studying and working to become an engineer or a lawyer is told "whoops, sorry, that's not enough, you also need to have interesting (to women) hobbies, be physically fit, and have a handsome face; I'm sure you will find time and energy to do all while you are working at a ridiculously demanding intellectual job, and also you better get all of that done way before you turn 35 because otherwise the idea of you marrying a 23 year old is just creepy!"

No your missing the point. Mormons get to marry hot virgin blondes because chastity is part of the culture. You don't need to be an engineer to live that life you need to be a Mormon. The basic requirements in Mormon culture to get a slim virgin wife is to have served your mission. So no, if your goal is to marry a virgin and have a traditional marriage all that time being an engineer is a waste of time because that's not how modern secular western culture works, a women who is a virgin to long sees her sexual value decrease, guys don't want to hook up with virgins because they're "to clingy" and even her girlfriends would judge her eventually. Waiting for marriage is just not a thing in modern secular culture. But as a Mormon or half a dozen other conservative religious subcultures you only need a job that can rent an apartment and a good reputation in the faith and there you go.

Our fictional engineer is not out of luck, however, he simply needs to to open Filipina.com and he'll have dozens of young pretty women falling all over him.

the idea of you marrying a 23 year old is just creepy!"

This will still exist but are you really telling me you'd turn down a marriage with a hot 20 something because it would annoy some of the most Who annoying people in the world? I actually feel that you are letting the most annoying women possible set the tone. If you look at the marriages actually happening 6/6/6/ isn't really the standard and the father you get away from tiktok and the apps, the better. Who really cares what the tiktok girlies think?

I know it's tempting to go meta and do some kind of both-sides moral equivalence thing here, but I think that's just wrong. Female sexuality is fundamentally stupid and evil in a way that male sexuality simply isn't

I wouldn't go that far but I do think that polygamy is the male equivalent of unreasonable female sexual desires. Just as it's unreasonable for an average woman to want commitment from a highly desirable man, so too is it unreasonable for a man to want a harem. Unreasonable in the sense that the math simply doesn't work. It's not achievable for more than an ultra-small minority.

Even so, we are all descendants of (1) men who did in fact have multiple wives; and (2) average women who nonetheless were married to high-status men. And obviously this evolutionary past heavily informs the sexual desires of both men and women.

The difference, though, is that for the most part, men accept that they are not supposed to engage in harem-building. They may still try, but if they publicly complain about their lack of success, society won't tell them that they are perfectly fine and if they are having difficulties it's because women are unreasonably demanding exclusivity.

By contrast, if an average woman complains about not being able to achieve commitment from a highly desirable man, she will be told that her desires are reasonable and if there's a problem it's with men.

So I would say that (1) female sexuality is stupid and evil; (2) male sexuality is also stupid and evil; (3) for the most part, the stupid and evil aspects of male sexuality are kept in check by societal pressure; and (4) our modern gynocentric/feminist society has greatly lessened the checks on female sexuality, so that (5) it does in fact seem like "[f]emale sexuality is fundamentally stupid and evil in a way that male sexuality simply isn't."

How is wanting commitment-free sex from a rotating harem of virgins less "stupid and evil" than wanting commitment from a "chad" who probably won't commit?

Women don't want to fuck a beta who fundamentally despises them. Truly a mystery and an injustice wrapped in an enigma.

Female sexuality is fundamentally stupid and evil in a way that male sexuality simply isn't.

Them's fightin' words, and we could get into a real fight over this. Men have done stupid and evil things for sex, and so have women. Male sexuality will happily fuck six year olds, is that fundamentally smart and good?

Male sexuality will happily fuck six year olds, is that fundamentally smart and good?

That is rather fundamentally unusual and unacceptable behavior in any remotely modern society I can name. There is a massive difference between ~most men being attracted to 16 year old women, but denying that attraction because of laws and socialization, and attempting to sleep with literal small children.

I might as well claim that "female sexuality" involves peanut butter and particularly attractive German Shepherds, since that has been documented at rates >0.

if we're going to say X sexuality is more evil than Y sexuality, then it is going to invite "here are instances of Y sexuality being pretty damn creepy". Both sexes, and sexuality, and fetishes/perversions/kinks, can be pretty damn creepy.

'Women are attracted to what they see as hotness in guys' is no more, or no less, creepy than 'men are attracted to what they see as hotness in girls'. That male sexuality does seem to be a very simple on/off switch of "young, big booba, big ass = dick go sproing!" is not the fault of women. Nor is it the fault of men if women can be attracted to older men who are more interesting/have a broader or deeper range of experience and, yeah, money/status.

"Good provider, good genetic material for potential offspring, attractive, dependable, funny, 6/6/6 = pussy wet" is not the fault of men. Can we stop saying "your preferences are evil" unless those preferences are actually evil? It's the male equivalent of "you should find tattooed, pierced, fat women just as attractive as Sydney Sweeney" - "no, just because I'm short, balding and not particularly well-paid, she's a bitch for not giving me a chance!"

A man's teenage virgin immediately stops being a virgin and rather soon stops being teenaged, and observing men who were able to fulfill their preferences fully shows that they want not one woman who is a teenage virgin at one point, but more teenage virgins.

I'll say this: very few sexual preferences strike me as being so evil as the man who has a preference for virginity paired with a disinterest in marriage. At that point you've got a fetish for burning the commons for no reason.

All of this assumes that 6/6/6 is true and that even an unattractive woman will only date a cute guy who is 6/6/6/6 (six foot, six figures, six pack, six inch long reproductive organ). This all comes from the myth that only a small number of men have sex with the majority of women.

That isn’t true.

If this were true, then we would see married women secretly having sex with other men while ovulating, and cuckolding their husbands. However, multiple genetic studies show a very low level of cuckoldry in western societies. Most of the time, the husband, the “beta provider” if you will, is the father of a woman’s children.

What surveys show (the information from surveys is collaborated by STD rates) is this:

  • About 20% of men and women both are very promiscuous
  • It would appear that, since most women aren’t promiscuous (if all of those “nice girls” were sleeping with “Chad”, we would see a lot of them have STDs from “Chad”, but we don’t), those 20% of “Chad”s are sleeping with women who, in turn, sleep with a lot of men.
  • There is a slight polygynous shift, but it’s nowhere near 80% of the women sleeping with 20% of the men.

It is true that women are very picky on most dating apps, but that’s because dating apps are about 70% men and 30% women. Fortunately, even though there is a single graph from one Dr. Michael J. Rosenfeld at Standford which claims everyone now meets on the apps, most people do not use the apps to meet partners.

Point being, women being super picky and things being hopeless for 80% of men is just a myth. For myself, I now have a girlfriend again, it was a lot of work to find her, yes, but we’re working out quite nicely.

I don't know how true this 6/6/6 thing is (I never heard of it until that stupid balloon popping ad for Kamala Harris) but even if so, it's the ideal, the same way that men want the blonde blue-eyed slim waist and big tits and shy coy virgin who's a nymphomaniac in the bedroom but for them only, yeah?

Then you find the ordinary person, man or woman, whom you settle down with. Nobody gets to marry movie stars and models routinely, only a few people. Ordinary people get with ordinary people. And mostly they're happy.

I was just recently thinking about the guys I know (from a various social circles) that have had a lot of girls and how what they have in common, moreso than looks, is just that they're generally lively, charismatic and fun to be with, the sort of guys that guys also generally want to have as friends. When it comes to lotharios I've known short guys, tall guys, thin guys, chubby guys (even at least one morbidly obese guy), muscular guys, non-muscular guys, whatever. I'm not saying looks are unimportant, just that looks more affect the attractiveness of the girls you can get with rather than the basic ability to be a promiscuous guy if you wish. (And also that heterosexual guys genuinely don't always understand what girls find physically attractive.)

Men are also naturally drawn to women that are, as you put it, generally lively, charismatic and fun to be with, especially shy, undersocialized men.

My pet theory is that the wonders of modern technology allow men (already naturally inclined to prefer things to people) to remain undersocialized, to replace social interaction with books, discussing the culture war, video games, watching porn and entering into parasocial relationships with generally lively, charismatic and fun to be with streamers.

If there's anything we need to retvrn to, it's the limited entertainment in a premodern village. When your only options for entertainment are singing, dancing and physical games, you can't avoid socialization. When you literally know everyone of marriageable age around you, you know your general ranking and what your chances are.

Sure, so long as we symmetrically destroy the wonders of modern (social) technology that enables women to create a social environment that pushes men away from socialization due to their extreme levels of unchecked social aggression. Men wouldn't be so inclined to remain "undersocialized" if we didn't enable women to abuse them so much in their intragender status games while denying men the ability to complain or often even talk about it, let alone retaliate without instantly jumping on them to "protect" the women in question--granting the women the status gains they were going for in the process.

Six pack: this presumably any man could achieve with sufficient exercise (and diet control) though it might be difficult to do concurrently with a six figure job.

Wasn't it a six-inch penis? Which makes your claim about the dice being loaded against men even stronger.

On a tangential note, I recently learned about the "average SEC couple" meme, which shows that not all hope is lost for those who don't meet the standard.

The "average SEC couple" meme is interesting. The reaction I've seen from some quarters is "What the heck is going on down there? Why are all these average looking dudes paired up with these dolled up 9/10s?" As anyone who went to school in the SEC knows, you can have a dumb or average looking face but if you've got some attitude ,swagger, a nice truck, and the right friends you can absolutely pull a girl who looks like that. Dudes are allowed to be dudes, you don't have to be what used to be called "metrosexual" to get laid. The other part is that the majority of girls actually just look like that, they go out of their way to wear feminine clothing and lots of makeup so they looks better** than your average frumpy non-SEC girl.

**according to the taste of many but not all -- personally I'm not a fan of the look though I can imagine the appeal

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