site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   11097 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.)

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.

Something approaching half of them are projected to be single by 2030

If that's not a result of 'refusing to settle' en masse then what could it be.

And my basic reminder, I am more than happy to look at data you present that contradicts my point, or accept any argumentation pointing out where my analysis is flawed.

Anyway, here's testimony from a matchmaker (also a female) about the standards put forth by a 31-year-old single woman. "There are a decent number of profiles like this."

From a matchmaker. Almost as convincing as your old OKCupid survey.

We've been over the flaws in your analysis before. You won't accept them because one cannot be reasoned out of a position one did not reason himself into. Your personal disappointment over my lying eyes, obviously we will both trust our respective sources.

Almost as convincing as your old OKCupid survey.

Still waiting on data to contradict it.

Have you seen the extremely comprehensive data from tinder that shows basically the exact same thing?

Here's a youtube video based on that data if that's more appealing.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3pvkgUc9Zbc?si=Tktvaz4PBg-Vsr5K

Your personal disappointment over my lying eyes, obviously we will both trust our respective sources.

You can keep saying this, but I sincerely suspect you don't actually believe it.

I just like to believe true things.

You can keep saying this, but I sincerely suspect you don't actually believe it.

I'm sure it's a comforting cope to believe that, but I do in fact mean what I say. Your "data" is not meaningful, any more than that Times of India article. (Women today choose not to have children for many reasons besides "Chad wouldn't give me one" and while you can argue their choices are bad, they aren't for the reasons you insist.)

I just like to believe true things

No. No, you tell yourself that. But what you like to believe is things that reinforce your sense of injustice inflicted upon you by the world. You construct just-so stories that reinforce a particular narrative, you take surveys as "data" and you dismiss any other model of human behavior because it doesn't fit your priors.

Your "data" is not meaningful

I don't think you're the one who determines that, actually.

You could convince me otherwise, but that would require laying down some kind of groundwork.

But what you like to believe is things that reinforce your sense of injustice inflicted upon you by the world. You construct just-so stories that reinforce a particular narrative, you take surveys as "data" and you dismiss any other model of human behavior because it doesn't fit your priors.

This is so wildly incorrect about my mode of thinking I can't even take offense to it, its like you threw a rock at my head but it flew off into the thicket of trees about 100 feet to my right and scared a Bobcat.

I genuinely have no sense of 'injustice inflicted upon me by the world.' Its just people, treating other people in ways they might not want to be treated in return, if anything.

Its rather interesting, however, that you think my data about large scale social trends leads me to wrong conclusions...

But you think your assessment of the inner workings of another person's mind is going to be spot on based on limited interactions.

Genuinely, explain your epistemic philosophy that lets you make confident conclusions about individual psychology whilst ALSO denouncing data-based analysis of trends. I want to hear it.

You don't do* "data-based analysis of trends." You post surveys and magazine articles that reinforce your opinion. But to give you a bit of allowance here, the problem is not so much that the surveys don't have meaningful data ("the dating market is a disaster and everyone is unhappy"), but the conclusions you draw from that.

I'll indulge your demand to explain my "epistemic philosophy" when you stop confidently declaring that people don't really believe the things they say because you disagree with them.

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