site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7567 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 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.

On the one side, the immense increase in anxiety disorders and antidepressant prescriptions among women over 35.

This could be the result of any of dozens of factors.

That being said, participating in this thread has changed my thinking a bit; I think that the "mate-guarding" hypothesis is actually pretty likely to be the correct one.

One interesting data point was the reaction of UMC women to Bezos' second wife. You may recall that instead of going for some 25-year-old hottie, he went for a woman who was middle-aged but had had a lot of plastic surgery including breast augmentation, more consistent with the values of working class women. My impression was that UMC women were rather bothered about this.

This could be the result of any of dozens of factors.

I mean, yes.

But all of those factors can also be boiled down to "women have acquired all the independence and concurrent responsibility they ever wanted, and this has caused them immense psychological distress."

Part of that independence is "now you have free rein to choose any mate you want... provided you can attract them."

And on top of the "paradox of choice" problem, now they realize that every other woman has this option... and is now competing for the same mates. This problem intensifies given that women are already primed to want the things they see other woman wanting.

My impression was that UMC women were rather bothered about this.

The rule that I've realized explains 90% of it: a woman will amplify any signal or story or selective pressure that raises her own status/desirability as a mate.

She will attack any signal or story or selective pressure that raises other womens' status, thereby compromising her own.

See the "body positivity" movement. Even though NO HIGH-STATUS MALE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET has married an obese woman, they unionized around the idea that they're perfect and beautiful as they are and men selecting based on size/weight had the problem.

But Ozempic has hit and now they're all happily losing weight.

And the outrage over Sydney Sweeney is likewise explained by this. Women who aren't pleasant-looking blonds with massive honkers are threatened when men seemingly declare this the ideal for female appearance.

Do you have any evidence to think that UMC women were especially bothered by this? I didn't notice. For sure his low class taste is another way to mock Bezos in a world where a lot of people want to mock him (for reasons good and bad). I'm not sure I saw UMC women taking advantage of this opportunity more than the UMC in general though.

Do you have any evidence to think that UMC women were especially bothered by this?

Not really, it's just my general impression.

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