site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29460 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.

One of the main reasons that bad faith actors like Andrew Tait are so popular is because many people in our society dont want to confront various hard truths, that many in red-pill spaces actively expose: Looks, Money, & Masculinity matter.

I like Andrew Wilson's take on the reddpill/manosphere: they have correct description but incorrect prescription. Many of the mainstream people are unable to even debate inside the redpill sphere purely due to a fear of being tainted by it, and then ganged up by male and female feminists. So all these prescriptions are living on without any serious challenge with a few notable exceptions. I can also give an example where Andrew Wilson (an orthodox debater) was debating I think Fresh & Fit when it came to their prescription that you should sleep at least with dozens of women before getting into relationship. Andrew had an interesting strategy for it:

  • Did you not say that easy women are of no value to a proper high value man? If yes, then how can easy women be of low value if they provide some value to high-value man in form of this mythical "experience"? So now hoes from the club and dumb prostitutes and OF bimbos are hidden masters of love, who will teach high value men about successful relationship? How?

  • Also why it is necessary to sleep with all those women to get this "experience"? Is it not maybe sufficient to get their number or some such and then dump them, maybe even saving yourself from some nasty herpes or something?

No matter what you think about these arguments, what was interesting was how their edifice crumbled. It was no longer enough to go through the standard redpill talking points of divorce rates or hypergamy or paternity fraud stats etc. As soon as the discussion was taken over to prescriptions and moral oughts, it collapsed.

The advice of planning to have multiple partners strikes me as directionally correct for most men. I made some mistakes with girlfriends and women in my formative years. Those mistakes have not followed me cuz things ended with those women. I also had to learn some things about women that just can't be taught. Or at least I was too dumb to be taught those things. The degree of female emotional attachment that comes with sex was hard for me to understand. I definitely hurt some people before I figured that out.

Planning to be a man-whore and rack up a body count seems like taking it too far. Sometimes the red pillers feel like a cargo cult for relationships. They seem to understand the pre-requisites, but have weird beliefs about why those things are pre-requisites.

The advice of planning to have multiple partners strikes me as directionally correct for most men.

Is it really true? As far as I am aware in all studies related to quality of relationships, the lower the number of previous partners, the better relationship satisfaction reported - for both sexes, like with this graph. Again, it may just be a correlation as for sure low number of sexual partners also may just be proxy for things like religiosity which is then tied to life satisfaction etc. But it sure is at least a hint and definitely evidence against the contrary narrative.

As for my personal anecdote I cannot say that my previous experience was too useful, not that I had a lot. I got married relatively young and I am still with my wife. If I compare my current wife even at the time we got together and my ex of 2 years before, it was a completely different experience. Attitudes, hobbies, relationship expectations and yes also sexuality - all of that was quite different.

Planning to be a man-whore and rack up a body count seems like taking it too far. Sometimes the red pillers feel like a cargo cult for relationships.

I actually think it is absolutely counterproductive. I do think having so many escapades has negative impact on a person, at minimum it has to be a time and resource hog even discounting emotional damage. Speaking of which - I know of three separate womanizers who slept with dozens+ women, who admitted that they have severe trust issues and experience severe jealousy with huge negative impact on their ability to keep a serious partner, just because of their previous experience with easy women. By severe jealousy I am talking about checking if the bed is warm after coming back from work to satisfy their OCD imagination of unfaithful wife. God forbid their wife took afternoon nap.

Interesting.

The graph does imply that up to four previous partners is fine. That seems like a safe number to me too.

I didn't realize I'd be in the manwhore category, depending on what counts as previous partners I've had between 5 (just counting long term girlfriends) and a few dozen (counting anything).

I'm very satisfied with my wife. I think I would have been far less satisfied with any of my previous girlfriends (which is why I broke up with them). I did learn things from those relationships that have definitely made me a better husband. I'm not sure I would have been able to woo my now wife, keep her as a girlfriend, take the leap to propose to her, or stay monogamous and in love during marriage. There are specific lessons I learned from previous relationships to help me through each of those stages.

Maybe other people learn faster than me, or know not to make certain mistakes in the first place. I was an idiot that required some learning.

It was absolutely a time and resource hog, but I don't really know what else would be worth spending my time and resources on. My free time would have been eaten up with playing video games, watching comedy, and arguing with people online. And those things are fun, but not fulfilling.

I often get the sense that the red pillers (meaning people who are really into that community, not just anyone who agrees with some of the ideas) don't actually want to have sex with women, they just want the ego boost / validation of having sex with women. They don't seem to be driven by either lust or romance. Instead, they seem to be driven by fear, ego, desire for status, and so on.

Did you not say that easy women are of no value to a proper high value man? If yes, then how can easy women be of low value if they provide some value to high-value man in form of this mythical "experience"? So now hoes from the club and dumb prostitutes and OF bimbos are hidden masters of love, who will teach high value men about successful relationship? How?

This feels like it's going to descend into the kind of boxing/MMA discourse about quality of opponent.

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