site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13289 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.)

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.

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.

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.

Agreed. Unless the woman looks like the guy in "Mask," if she is fit and in her fertile years, she'll have lots of male interest.

It's an interesting fact about modern America that 99% of women can choose to have a period of 15 to 20 years in which they can make an excellent living off of their looks alone by being an exotic dancer. Or if they don't want to go that route, 99% of women can obtain a lifelong financial commitment from a man of substantial means.

99% of women can obtain a lifelong financial commitment from a man of substantial means.

This is, of course, untrue. 99% of women can probably bang a man of substantial means, but that's not the same thing at all.

This is, of course, untrue. 99% of women can probably bang a man of substantial means, but that's not the same thing at all.

I disagree. I regularly work out at the gym and see just how attractive a plain woman can be if (1) she is in her early 20s; and (2) she is in great shape. Such a woman would have no problem getting a marriage proposal from some lonely but successful tech bro.

No. Young, thin, athletic women with excellent social skills, in an economically vibrant area might, I suppose. I've never known anyone like that, the tech bro is probably lucky to have her.

No. Young, thin, athletic women with excellent social skills, in an economically vibrant area might, I suppose. I've never known anyone like that, the tech bro is probably lucky to have her.

In theory, this issue should not be extremely hard to test. You create an online dating profile of a young woman who is plain in terms of facial attractiveness but in excellent physical shape. You say in the profile that you are interested only in financially successful marriage-minded men and that you will entertain only detailed replies which make clear that the man is both financially successful and marriage minded. I'm pretty confident that such a dating profile would get lots of serious interest. I take it you disagree?

I don't have a very clear image of either a 2nd percentile female face, or of what the app scene is like, but the latter sounds pretty dire from reports, so sure, she might get some serious interest there. Or LLM approximations thereof. And then if she generally behaves well, doesn't ghost serious men, makes good choices, is actually compatible with a man who wants marriage, then she might in fact find a well off husband. Or maybe he would string her along for a few years hoping he could do better but still enjoying the sex, and eventually they would break up, and they would be both be a couple of years older, but it would mean more to her than to him.

It's not that the marriage and family version of the story never happens. It's just that there are a lot of ifs and uncertainties, a lot of places where it might not work out, after investing quite a bit of effort. Which happens to men as well, but I'm not arguing that men have it easier.

So my argument isn't that she won't get interest, or even a relationship, but that many of those 99 thin but ugly women will just end up in a relationship that wastes their youth without obtaining a commitment, unless they have a lot else going for them. Especially if the man is sensible and realizes that if they marry and have kids, her body will change, and she will probably become fatter and more sedentary over time.

More comments

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