site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29412 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 really big problem is that it's hard to offer men a compelling alternative to grifters like Tate, who promise a buffet of pussy, fast cars, and shiny toys.

It wouldn't be difficult if anyone with the ability to do so was interested in doing so. They are not.

Almost no women will give you a direct signal of interest unless you're extremely attractive or she's extremely keen on you, so learn the subtle ones.

The punishment for type I errors -- responding to a subtle signal when there isn't one -- has become so great that there's little opportunity to learn. If the punishment for failure is at best becoming known as "that creep" and quite possibly some sort of formal punishment, it is hard to find the boundaries. (Thus the earlier suggestion that the right thing to do if this happens is to change cities!)

Men need to initiate, that's just the way it is, but then women then have the responsibility of turning men down graciously if they're being courted in good faith. I remember being an awkward teenager and once asking a stunningly beautiful waitress for her number. She turned me down, saying something like "I have a boyfriend, but that took balls. Girls like that." It was an unambiguous but positive rejection, and didn't cost her anything.

There's nothing in it for them to do this, and in fact it does cost them. The problem the hotties have (or perceive they have) is too many approaches from uggles. Vicious shoot-downs and the prospect of formal punishment create deterrents that winnow the field in advance.

There's nothing in it for them to do this, and in fact it does cost them.

Short term perhaps, but long term they gain healthier relationships with half the human population and the opportunity for many of them to meet guys that could be great matches for them but who have been conditioned to never approach them out of fear of the social consequences.

Wouldn't it be great if HR reps could teach the less-than-stellar candidates how to create good CVs? Instead of having to sift through hundreds of eligible candidates, they could so so with thousands! Maybe there's even a hidden gem in there somewhere.

Women with options don't want less preselection, they want more.

If they have hundreds of eligible candidates, why isn't the job filled yet?

Why do you think the main goal is to fill the position rather than bask in the attention of high-quality candidates?

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