site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29483 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Mainstream discourse might act like female attraction is meritocratic, but in my experience if one talks to actual women they tend to be quite open about the non-meritocratic nature of their attraction to men. I suppose, however, that the majority of straight men who have little sexual experience don't talk to many women in general, so they are not exposed to this. And if they were, it would likely not make them feel much better just because it's honest.

It's possible that women's attraction to men, despite not being meritocratic, is more meritocratic than men's attraction to women. In any case, I don't think it's less meritocratic. But that, too, is small comfort to straight men who don't have much sexual experience.

but in my experience if one talks to actual women they tend to be quite open about the non-meritocratic nature of their attraction to men.

I agree with this. Although, a close lady friend asked me a couple times why she's never seen me on a date (my last relationship was in 2021). She asked if I was closeted, I said no. Then the next 10 minutes was her telling me I didn't have to be ashamed and that I can confide in her. I realised even mature, experienced women can't fully comprehend a reality where you could go 4-5 years without anyone showing interest. I won't claim it's 100% not my fault though, the peace is underrated and at this point, a relationship low key feels like an invasion.

Mainstream discourse might act like female attraction is meritocratic, but in my experience if one talks to actual women they tend to be quite open about the non-meritocratic nature of their attraction to men.

The Blue Tribe has decreed that only feminists are allowed to have an opinion on gender relations, and feminists will insist that female sexuality is meritocratic on average (while defending any individual woman's choices to date badboys, especially their own) because to do otherwise makes women look bad.

This is made worse because the Red Tribe thinks that the people who should be listened to on gender relations are pastors who are , in the current year, more likely than not to say that female sexuality is meritocratic even if they are otherwise-conservative evangelicals. The idea that if you aren't getting laid you must not be praying hard enough is sufficiently pervasive in modern American Christian culture that even the otherwise admirable TitaniumButterfly AAQC hints at it.

It also didn't help that Roissy deliberately chose a term ("alpha") that implies female sexuality is meritocratic (but with a less pussified definition of "merit" than the standard one) while correctly insisting that it is not, and a lot of less talented manosphere writers following him didn't understand that he was using "alpha" in a sense where the positive connotations were ironic.

And access to the ground truth is not available to the men who need it because women do not discuss their own sexuality frankly around men they do not trust. Women being open about their non-meritocratic sexuality happens in all-female settings or in the kind of art fag-ridden mixed groups where straight men who can't get laid are already selected out. Hence the advice to read bestselling Amazon romance slop to understand what women want rather than asking them.

The idea that if you aren't getting laid you must not be praying hard enough is sufficiently pervasive in modern American Christian culture

And any tangible advice is the usual blue tribe rhetoric sprinkled with some macho talk. Don't be insecure! Wife up that 37yo Christian mom with a totally not-unChristian history! Yet, socially stunted 20yo simps probably do line up for her. Just cuz a 5/10M is willing to fuck a 5/10F doesn't mean the reverse is true.

You’re not a stepdad, you’re the one who stepped up. Plus, the sperm donor of a biodad already knocked her up so you don’t have to, thus you’re the winner here.

Indeed, both progressives and modern mainstream conservatives are on the same page with regard to women’s Wonderfulness—and Fun, Freedom for women and duties, obligations, Being a Real Man and Stepping Up for men.

You are ignoring, of course, that even secular, socially liberal red tribers do not see ‘getting laid’ as worth encouraging in itself. The goal is supposed to be a stable relationship that forms a nuclear family. That does not mean that the red tribe necessarily hates premarital sex; that means that it is not the metric by which romantic success is measured.

"If you're not getting laid, you're not praying hard enough" is a message that gets applied by cucked pastors to married sex as well as premarital sex.

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