site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   20314 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Something like this

Yeah, that's dumb. Rich young men have fun with the wholesome waitresses before settling down to marry women of their own class. If the rich guy makes his money later in life, he's likely (again) to marry a woman of his own general level and background (see Bezos and Mackenzie, before he threw it all up in the air for the bimbo next door). Then when he gets mega-rich he may indeed dump her for the younger trophy wife from a lower background, but in general King Cophetua and the beggar girl is not happening much outside of Regency romances. People who come from money marry money, or those who are around money enough to fit into the lifestyle, so yeah the "ambitious girlboss" who can talk about her C-suite level job at fundraisers. The only wholesome waitresses getting into that level are those who did it while in college for fun, or after they graduated and took a year to 'find themselves' before returning to being Daddy's heiress.

Why are we assuming these men stop fucking dumb waitresses just because they're married. What's the culture war angle here, girls get some education so you can get your techbro founder interested in you at a rationalist party? Fuck that, just being a mistress or camwhore has about the same success rate. Play to your advantage, if the girl cant hack it in private equity or exploit parasocialist tendencies by camwhoring she can make money writing absolutely disgusting romantasy billionaire bestiality fics.That at least is still somewhat immune to western AI encroachment due to guardrails, but over in the East novelslop is already AI pilled.

What if you fail at “your own class”? I feel like I’m in this bucket for various reasons. I would have preferred a girl from my own education bucket (dms mostly open). Now I date down. I am fine with that. The choice between my own age girl boss or an Argentinian 28 year old seems easy.

Even today I doubt the majority of the women of that class are "ambitious girlboss" as opposed to "MRS degree". This discussion is trying to draw a false dichotomy between waitress and girlboss, when there is in fact a secret third thing, which is naturally upper-class women who want to get married, have kids, and probably run a nonprofit/vanity business to stave off the boredom of having the help do everything.

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