site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27010 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It boils my piss when people throw out accusations at people in the Motte in the general sense. If you're going to smear a 'not insignificant' fraction of his fellow partisans in this community as misogynists, you better have everything cut and dry or I'm going to assume you're talking shit. Name names.

It boils my piss

That sounds unpleasant.

If you're going to smear a 'not insignificant' fraction of his fellow partisans in this community as misogynists, you better have everything cut and dry or I'm going to assume you're talking shit. Name names.

Her fellow partisans.

Naming names is either ban-baiting me or trying to start drama, but if you like, here are incidents where her piss is being boiled -

Here's her and sloot. Number of other comments in that thread.

Took me a while to figure it out, but here's her getting into it with 'The Mountain' guy on her previous account (you can follow her comments on his weekly posts if you like).

Here's what I thought would be the next flameout.

I would call the viewpoint that women are lesser, less agentic, less intelligent, less capable (excluding less physically strong) misogynistic. I don't think these arguments are particularly rare around here. Would you disagree with either point?

I would call the viewpoint that women are lesser, less agentic, less intelligent, less capable (excluding less physically strong) misogynistic.

As a side note, I would have to disagree with this. Of course it's all a matter of semantics, but defining misogyny in this way implies that it's somehow immoral or hateful to make a generalization which puts women as a group in a negative light -- even if that generalization is correct.

less capable (excluding less physically strong)

In my view, this gives the game away. Why is it not misogynistic to observe that men are physically stronger than women? Presumably the reason is that this observation is correct - men are indeed stronger than women. It seems to me that there are other correct generalizations for which women compare unfavorably to men. At a minimum, reasonable people could reach such a conclusion. Would doing so be immoral or hateful?

It's also worth noting the double-standard in play. If someone observes that men are more prone to committing violent crime than women, it's far more tolerated by society since it puts women in a positive light compared to men.

Consider the following 2 statements:

Men are more prone to taking risks than women, which is why the vast majority of workplace deaths are of men.

Men are more comfortable taking risks than women, which is why the vast majority of tech billionaires are men.

Both are arguably true, but only one will get you labeled a "misogynist" if you say it.

So that in practice "misogyny" means "anything which is unfavorable to women"

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