site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18929 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 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.

Here's the truth nuke: Clavicular is not an incel.

This stuff keeps popping up in my twitter feed, and I'm left with the intense feeling that the people yearn for Pro Wrestling storylines, with heels and faces and obviously manufactured storylines.

But on to the main event...

The current verdict is that boys should have their screen times monitored or limited so they don't get corrupted by the manosphere, and raise them with feminist values. Okay. I agree with some of this.

The problem is that the spaces that seek to inculcate "good" values, whether they be the campus Feminist Collective or the Youth Bible Study at your local church, give absolutely terrible advice on how to get a girlfriend. Whether they are telling you to carry extra tampons to give to girls like a weird creep, or they are telling you that the best girl for you is the one that has no urge to have sex with you, they give bad advice.

Raising your boy with feminist values is unlikely to have much better retention rate than Evangelical christianity, which according to a Lifeway study, has about a 1/3 success rate for kids who attended church regularly as kids making it through college age (though it gets about 10% of them back by their late 20s).

Boys are going to do the things that get them what they want. What do they want? Sexual attention from girls, status from their peers. For the most part, those amount to the same thing, as getting attention from girls is the single most important form of status among their peers, and status from their peers is the single best way to get sexual attention from girls.

When you cede the field of good advice for getting girls to assholes, then you end up with boys listening to assholes. Take away the assholes' ammunition, pre-empt them by raising your boys to be successful. Dan Savage successfully inculcated perverted homosexual values in a generation of liberal millennial boys because he also gave them the tools to get laid, the manosphere started as good advice for getting laid and that spoonful of sugar got the medicine of misogyny down, those seeking to inculcate other values in boys have to do the same.

as getting attention from girls is the single most important form of status among their peers

Indeed, and I can somewhat understand the sentiment behind attempting to dismantle attached status to male sexual success. But this gives "progressives talking about sex instead of having it". I'd wager it's the conception error that underpins the conviction that conventionally gendered preferences and behaviours in young boys and girls are byproducts of external socialisation, and therefore, can be overturned. Since female sexual success carries no comparable status premium within the culture, the instinct is once again to refashion men in the image of the female ideal.

Since female sexual success carries no comparable status premium within the culture, the instinct is once again to refashion men in the image of the female ideal.

I'm curious what you mean by this, female sexual success delivers a huge premium to women's status. Female sexual success places a higher premium on quality of partner over quantity of partners, though I think there is a large premium for that in men as well. You wouldn't admire a man or label him high status for fucking a LOT of fat ugly women.

Female sexual success is default assumed, that is why virginity is valued in women. It is a choice. A modestly attractive woman can easily gain sexual access to her looksmatch. Male sexual success is not default. It requires social proof, status, dominance, or standout traits to access desirable women. And of course, "success" implies that the women the man is having sex with are at least somewhat desirable.

So you're defining female sexual success as "getting laid." I don't really think that's accurate, female sexual success is getting commitment, or devotion, or admiration, from men. And that carries a very large status premium.

When you cede the field of good advice for getting girls to assholes, then you end up with boys listening to assholes.

You can't avoid that without changing girls. Because, in the parlance of an older generation, "Chicks Dig Jerks".

You can't change girls. What you can do is force them to be with non-assholes. Which we did, for a very long time. Until we suddenly decided that we are too good for that. And now we are going extinct.

You can't change girls. What you can do is force them to be with non-assholes. Which we did, for a very long time. Until we suddenly decided that we are too good for that. And now we are going extinct.

There's no need for anything extreme. There are plenty of subcultures in the West where social norms (1) strongly discourage women from having sex outside of marriage; and (2) require that potential marriage partners be approved by the parents. This does a reasonably good job of filtering out the sort of men who are best avoided (and encouraging a lot of men who would otherwise be players to behave more constructively).

Social pressure was one of the ways women were coerced into marrying nice guys, along with religious indoctrination, the threat of economic privation, and physical force as a last resort. But you really need all of them.

Social pressure was one of the ways women were coerced into marrying nice guys, along with religious indoctrination, the threat of economic privation, and physical force as a last resort. But you really need all of them.

Based on my observations, I would say that physical force is unnecessary. In the sense that 99% of women will respond just fine to social pressure and economic incentive. Yes, you might need physical force for that last 1%, but in terms of preserving the numbers and cohesiveness of a group, letting that 1% go isn't a big deal.

Indeed, that 1% will mostly hoist themselves on their own petard(sheltered religious girls dating players, uh, wind up regretting their choices) and all of their peers will know this.

make-women-property-again

And now we are going extinct.

As I pointed out in my top post, inspired by recent demise of Paul Ehrlich

The overpopulation panic was used to justify respectable tally of atrocities all over the world. It turned to be, even if you disregard any humanist soy crap about "value" of human life and well being, at best unnecessary, at worst counterproductive.

Now, the depopulation doomers salivate at the chance of running killing fields of their own. Nothing changes, no one ever learns anything.

Women were not property in the USA, 1955(a recent TFR peak), and have never been legally property in this country.

I'm not sure "the guys who argued for the opposite of you have been decisively proven wrong" is the own you think it is.

People who argued: "The end is near! No time for sentimentality, we must pile up pyramids of skulls to save the world!" were in recorded history always proven wrong.

But this time it is different!

This is a generalized argument against all large claims, that is to say it proves way way too much. Some claims are true, some claims are false, you need to actually address each on their merits.

You can't avoid that without changing girls. [...] "Chicks Dig Jerks"

I think that's confusing a subset with the whole set. Because really, Chicks Dig Confident Men. And jerks are very good at appearing confident. Easy mistake, happens to most women...

But that's good news, teaching boys confidence (and to display confidence) might not be easy, but at least it's straight forward.

I don't think it's that clean. "Chicks dig" the whole dark triad, not just confidence.

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