site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   26759 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Young productive men are functionally slaves in modern western societies. They work for a pittance while the vast majority of their economic output goes to their betters through many mechanisms of taxation and redistribution, they have no political representation as a class (it is illegal) and are regarded with malicious contempt by their master classes.

I think there are really two separate but related issues here: The forced redistribution of wealth and the lack of respect. Based on what I know about human psychology, I think it's the second issue that's more important.

As others have warned before, including famously Friedrich Hayek, this is unstable and ripe for a revolution.

I tend to doubt this. Because if France is anything like the United States, there is still a lot of opportunity for the most talented (or otherwise elite) young men to achieve the social status and respect I mentioned above. Let's suppose you are earning roughly $1m a year as a man in the West. Yes, you are paying ridiculous taxes and probably supporting a few single moms, but there is still a lot left over to (voluntarily) make a nice life for yourself and for the people around you. A life which is far better than anyone could get from collecting social security, welfare etc. Why would such a man put together some kind of revolution and disrupt the system which is working reasonably well for him? And without elites, how far is a revolution going to get?

I think the bigger problem is family formation. When men achieve money and status, they tend to get married and stay married. When women achieve money and status, they tend to get divorced and stay single. Ergo, forcible transfers of money and status from men to women can be expected to negatively impact family formation. And this does seem to be happening in the West.

France has very, very few salaries anywhere near that high.

if France is anything like the United States, there is still a lot of opportunity for the most talented (or otherwise elite) young men to achieve the social status and respect I mentioned above

France is unlike the US precisely in this way. Which is why French Engineers are so numerous to leave and work for US companies.

I think Americans don't have a feel for how ridiculous taxation and redistribution is in France because they are always astonished when I give specifics. For instance: we are now to the point that the French State spending in proportion of GDP is higher that it ever was in the Soviet Union.

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