site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5426 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.)

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.

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