site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29417 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.

I know it seems that im kind of unfairly targeting men here, but i see little alternative.

I've proposed literally just return to a status quo ante of circa 1993 with regard to education policy/funding.

I don't think you have to 'target' female sexuality. Literally just level the playing field and stop subsidizing degrees that don't pay well or boosting female employment in careers they aren't suited for. Let the market correct.

And you will then have, on the margins, more men with relatively high status and a bit more wealth, and more women who haven't had their standards raised arbitrarily whilst becoming less appealing as partners.

And we start to reduce the political polarization of women because it is 100% clear that the college education environment is driving the women to the left in droves. Fewer Gender Studies degrees would be an unalloyed improvement.

If nobody is willing to make a policy change that risks upsetting females, the current course will only correct when something breaks.

I bring this up mainly because The Gender Divide is extremely pronounced among younger generations. There's zero reason to think this moderates later.

As the Boomers shuffle off, there's going to be a crack in the dam that currently protects females from social restriction and cultural 'retaliation.'

What do you think happens if a generation where an actual majority of the men don't even believe in gender equality achieves political power?

Implement some solutions now to correct course, or I'm genuinely afraid for how the Zoomers will end up addressing this problem that, from their perspective, stole their future.

There is no likely future where women retain their rights and privileges. That which cannot go on forever, won't. Correcting the problem now would lead to a softer landing, but it's politically impossible, so hard landing it is. Do not mistake this prediction for a preference.

There is no likely future where women retain their rights and privileges.

Well I think one possibility is technological changes which are so radical that these relationship issues are moot. e.g. robot waifus, artificial wombs, etc.

But I agree that absent radical changes in technology, feminism is ultimately a self-correcting problem.

I think this prediction is fraught with the same issues any prognostication more than a couple years out is, thanks to the rapidly changing technological landscape.

But yeah, if we see economic downturn for [reasons] this likely reasserts the gender dynamics, of necessity, because we can't afford to elevate women into critical positions, and the labor men provide will be far more valuable in those conditions.

However, I largely reject people who say anything is 'politically impossible.' Not after what I've seen Trump do. Throwing in the towel without making some calculated efforts is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I do genuinely think that if there's a massive cultural shift and political power starts coalescing on the right, women will gravitate there naturally and discard previous beliefs pretty readily.

I offer the small, tiniest bit of evidence by pointing out two things:

  1. The recent decline in young people identifying as LGBT. The increase in the first place was largely driven by women.

  2. The accelerating disappearance of the body positivity movement thanks to weight loss drugs. Or at least the "healthy at any size" division. (also many of its proponents just... died).

Simply put, if it becomes 'high status' to be a married stay at home mom, expect women to fall into line rapidly. Whether it is technology or politics or something else that creates the change, that's our best chance at a 'soft' landing.

I admire your optimism.

Only way I can keep getting up in the morning, honestly.

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