site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   7812 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

Over the last decade or so, I've heard the name Eric Swalwell a few times.

First, because he got caught up in a Chinese Honeypot, then because he obliquely threatened to nuke me.

He has reappeared in the news recently, not only as a California gubernatorial candidate, but also as an alleged rapist. Fox news is reporting that he will step down.

The balance of power in Congress will likely remain unchanged, as GOP congressman Gonzalez will also be stepping down, though the impact on California politics may be notable.

Historically, California's executive branch has been a powerful feeder into future presidential races. The fall of Swalwell will cause a localized power vacuum that may have unexpected repercussions.

As someone who is not a California resident, I have no special insider information here. Would any locals care to weigh in on how this is impacting things within the state?

Personally I’ve yet to see anything out of these accusations that looks all that convincing. The major accuser who went on the record first said she hooked up with Swalwell many times and continued to text him, and had to tack something on at the end to imply some kind of date rape. (She didn’t remember getting that drunk!) there was one accuser who basically accused Swalwell of choking and almost killing her, but that seems wildly implausible without more evidence that he was into that.

This is like when Dems chased out Al Franken or Andrew Cuomo, there’s a noose tightening now around straight heterosexual male sex. I see a lot of conservacons cheering but this seems longhoused to me.

I also always wonder at the extent of this activity in Congress. I’ve heard rumors of sex parties and orgies and such, but it’s not clear to me how much of that is rumoring from people who don’t know anything. It’s Washington DC, it’s a major American city, of course someone somewhere is having an orgy. And Hill staffers can get up to quite a lot in private (I’ve “dated” quite a few myself). But the Congressmen? The Senators? The people who actually matter? For every Swalwell running around I imagine there’s an Elizabeth Warren not getting up to anything (I imagine, I hope, I imagine I tell myself). And what Swalwell seems to have verifiably done so far (drunkenly kiss a girl who is not his wife on camera) is not much worse than what I could find my friends doing in the groupchats.

What I mean is, supposedly there are Illuminati rape bacchanal orgies happening in Washington to blackmail the politicians and that’s one of the reasons a story like this gets so much interest but I never see the evidence. This topic gets a lot of debate from among my friends.

Professional life in America has a weird double reality happening.

One where sex exists, men are horny, and women are using their bodies to advance.

And one where we act like sexless automotons in the workplace and things are determined on merit and skill.

I call it a double reality because both are true, but they are also obviously contradictory to each other and reality at the same time. The sex realism reality is at odds with having a functional workplace. And the merit matters reality is at odds with human nature and behavior.

There are three groups that matter in most organizations (and their comparative name at a national level in parenthesis). Managers (politicians), Employees (staff), and Owners (voters).

Managers tend to like the sex reality, owners tend to hate it, and employees have mixed feelings depending on how much it benefits them.

Owners tend to like the merit reality, managers tend to hate it, and employees have mixed feelings depending on how much it benefits them.

This has served me well for understanding job shit that happens, big government, small government, big corporations, or mom and pop stores. Some things that result:

  1. If owners are also managers, you'll find out what their priorities are pretty quickly. Either they are fucking their employees, or hiring a bunch of uggos. Its not fully that bad, but in small business it can feel that bad.
  2. Managers try to obfuscate everything happening to the owners. They dislike oversight from owners. But need maximal oversight on employees.
  3. Owners are addicted to hard performance metrics. 'Are you making money?' is hard to fake. When hard performance metrics aren't possible like in government orgs, sometimes owners will resort to a byzantine set of rules making or a catch all "if i dont like what you are doing you are fired, and no I won't tell you all the things i dislike".
  4. As an employee beware of other employees when complaining about the reality you dislike. You don't know if they are part of the other one.
  5. As a male manager you need to be very clear about not wanting to fuck your employees. It will probably be the default assumption about you for anyone living in the "sex reality". As a female manager, you don't need to be clear, we get it.
  6. Anyone married and with kids has bonus points towards the "merit reality". The exceptions, hos and horn dogs, will be obvious for the non-autistic. Trust your instincts.
  7. Barriers come down outside of work. You can find out many details about your organization over some drinks. Helpful for gathering information and not making stupid mistakes. But also a bad place for you to make stupid mistakes and lay your hand out too early.

I wish I could say "if you want to fuck people at work, you are bad and shouldn't do that" but I'd be gigantic hypocrite. I dated a girl from work in high school. Met women at work parties for one night stands in college (I was working on capital hill at the time). Had a sexual relationship with someone in HR at a workplace. Later at that same workplace I met my wife, dated her secretly for a while, and then openly dated before getting married. Can happily say I stopped 'shitting where I eat' after that.

All of that to say I also have no idea what reality looks like in Washington. But "both of the realities are true" doesn't feel wrong to me. There are probably weird sex orgies, there are probably high level government employees cheating on their spouses, fucking hookers, and hitting on underage girls. At the same time it doesn't mean these sexual escapades are running Washington. I'd bet good money that all of the supreme court justices are faithful to their spouses and not getting sexually tricked into supreme court rulings one way or the other. There is probably a large amount of "meritocracy" within agencies. I put that in quotation marks, because it is merit that the agency cares about. But its not so bad to be merit in the sense of "how good is your blowjob technique".

Had a sexual relationship with someone in HR at a workplace.

Now here's a man who likes to live life on the edge.

First, because he got caught up in a Chinese Honeypot, then because he obliquely threatened to nuke me.

Same two links for me, but I do remember the second one

Here, contemporaneous discussion here and here (unfortunately, the latter with a deleted OP).

he got caught up in a Chinese Honeypot

Awhile ago, someone had a post talking about feeling oddly disappointed by the bribes people associated with the Trump administration had been caught taking, as many of the dollar amounts seemed pitifully small. Scott made a similar point in Too Much Dark Money in Almonds: when you consider the power and influence afforded to the executive and legislative branches, the amount of money invested in campaign donations and PACs seems impossibly small.

I feel the same way looking at photos of the Chinese honeypot in question. I'm not saying she's ugly or anything, but she seems decidedly... mid? And this is coming from someone who has a thing for Asian women! There are plenty of Asian women who aren't even famous for their looks who are more attractive e.g. Tiffany Fong, Yvette Young, Jia Tolentino. I've personally met Chinese women who were hotter than her.

Different beauty standards strikes again. All three persons you listed…are solidly 3 in China.

Is there a website or something that lets Chinese/other EAsian and Americans/westerners score woman and man of different ethnicities? Fascinating..

I have a classmate who for many years has been considered by me a 2, basically a female but not a woman if I want to be mean (actually the moment I realized that I might be a school bully is when I remembered many years later how mean I was to her) and has never hooked up with anyone in China. Went to Germany and found a dude who looks like a Nazi poster boy. Beauty is in the eyes of beholder indeed.

Can you give me an example of a woman who'd be considered a 10/10 in China?

I think even in East Asian reckoning Christine Fang is not that good looking?

Yeah she’s mid but I’d say better than the three named in @FtttG’s post.

I think in this case Swalwell was seeing lots of women and this was just one broad among many. The Democratic response to that scandal actually makes more sense then: Swalwell saw lots of women so why would we assume this one had any special access?

The power of being proactive, pleasant and introduced from the right angles for a woman cannot be understated.

I feel the same way looking at photos of the Chinese honeypot in question. I'm not saying she's ugly or anything, but she seems decidedly... mid? And this is coming from someone who has a thing for Asian women! There are plenty of Asian women who aren't even famous for their looks who are more attractive e.g. Tiffany Fong, Yvette Young, Jia Tolentino. I've personally met Chinese women who were hotter than her.

Arnold's wife Maria Shriver and the woman he cheated on her with Mildred Baena. I feel confident in saying that I'd choose Maria over Mildred.

But I do wonder if the choices for Arnold and the choices for weren't actually as good as you'd think. Arnold might have been in a sexless marriage. And Eric might have been a creepy politician with weird power fantasies that turned lots of women off.

The choice between "will you have sex with an ugly/mid woman or no woman at all" is a lot easier for most guys to understand, and I think that might describe their situations more accurately.

I've never had a foreign agent try to seduce me, so I can't speak directly to what inducements they might offer, but I imagine even quite successful men are not so inundated with sexual attention from women that they would pass on a moderately attractive woman who actively wants to sleep with them, especially if they're not especially faithful or scrupulous (as appears to be the case with Swalwell).

I would also hazard a guess that genuinely gorgeous women who are willing to trade on their appearance have better career prospects than espionage honeypot.

Maybe there's a certain impulse to look the gift horse in the mouth that'd come if suddenly 11/10's were materializing from the aether, as well? The woman might not look like a supermodel in photos but she's definitely in the realm of attractive and if she's got pleasant, positive energy that's likely gonna add a bunch more points to the equation.

Also having been on dating apps in the last decade, the attractiveness floor has cratered due to obesity and alternative lifestyles. Pleasant, non-fat and proactive can go miles for you.

If you're the type of person to take bribes to begin with, believing that you'll get away with minimal consequences, it makes sense that you might not be as picky as to which bribes. It is weird how they don't seem to be able to negotiate for that much, but I suppose there's not much room for that either and you just take what is offered.

And this is coming from someone who has a thing for Asian women! There are plenty of Asian women who aren't even famous for their looks who are more attractive e.g. Tiffany Fong, Yvette Young, Jia Tolentino. I've personally met Chinese women who were hotter than her.

Sure but are any of them dying to fuck you? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush as the saying goes. A somewhat hot babe who really really wants you > all the girls you're never gonna get.

I'm not saying she's ugly or anything, but she seems decidedly... mid?

A pretty girl men fight for

They've even started wars

How pretty does she have to be

When she's down upon all fours?

I find the ones who aren't so pretty

Are diamonds in the rough

Cause pretty girls may look good

But the ugly know their stuff

https://youtube.com/watch?v=TVNo40LA7yc

Well, I've already declared what I think of that opinion.

I'll second your take. I think it was maybe more that he had a lack of options rather than having some particular thing for this woman.

Looks aren't everything. If Ms Fang was in fact part of a Chinese Honeypot, then she was potentially trained in the arts of seduction at a government black site dedicated to the craft. Thousands of man years and billions of dollars may have gone into research and development of novel techniques and grueling conditioning.

The way she fucks probably violates the Geneva convention.

Aren’t all girls trained in the art of seduction? Is there really some mysterious art CIA/KGB/Mossad can teach? Nearly every girl takes some kind of dance courses since they were 5 like how every boy plays t-ball. Then girls do make-up together. Talk about boys all thru high school.

Sure some are better. But most have a lot of training growing up.

Then girls do make-up together.

Learning how to make oneself look more attractive is but one component of learning how to seduce someone. In courtship, men are traditionally expected to take on a more active, agentic role compared to women (e.g. women expect to be asked out, not to do the asking), so the skills associated with seduction are not generally ones that women learn by default.

True. From paintings, Cleopatra doesn't look like much to write home about, but her seduction skills are the stuff of legend.

She also controlled the richest granary in the world, important when society runs on bread and circuses.

Endless jugs of fermented grain, huge buns of bread in reserve, the nile delta spread out in an inviting welcome, and countless hard obelisks and pyramids erected all long that river. Egypt is such a slut.

Indeed. I have often noticed how men who seem reasonably picky can be seduced by a very plain woman who is intent on it. As has been discussed many times, men are usually doing the work of pickup and seduction. When a woman makes an effort, especially if she knows what she's doing, it's all too easy. Add in a midlife crisis and/or marital doldrums and a lonely dude is an easy target.

Women aren't aware of how far being moderately pleasant and proactive can get them if not absolutely hideous

I suspect that there are all sorts of social mores at play here that prevent women from making what could arguably be considered a "first move," up to and including a reputation among...other women, who would (or might) judge them for this. I was a trainer in a large group for a while (mostly women) and the one woman who was demonstratively affectionate toward me and the other male trainers was almost unanimously turned on by the rest of the female trainees. This was always done subtly except behind closed doors. There might also be the notion that a girl wants to play hard-to-get, but I'm not sure how far that goes.

A woman who communicates interest with a stranger even subtly is rare, outside an alcohol-drenched setting. Prolonged or repeat eye-contact, a smile, these can be very fetching. The nuclear arm touch. And of course sometimes it's the talking loudly to another female friend in your presence about some topic in which you may have interest, and deliberately avoiding eye contact with you when doing so. The modern equivalent of dropping the handkerchief.

Then of course there is the fear that if you show interest a guy will turn into a slobbering handsy weirdo who turns stalker. This is I think overblown but I do not deny it happens--it's certainly the scary version of why to be demure.

Note: Sometimes a smile and an arm touch is just a smile and an arm touch.

Sometimes a smile and an arm touch is just a smile and an arm touch.

Oh Lord. Years ago I was having lunch with three female colleagues, one of whom I had a slight crush on (she was engaged). I told a joke, whereupon the girl I was crushing on burst out laughing and placed her hand on my forearm. In my head I was just like "be still, my heart". I'm sure nothing was implied by it – unless...?

I was a trainer in a large group for a while (mostly women) and the one woman who was demonstratively affectionate toward me and the other male trainers was almost unanimously turned on by the rest of the female trainees. This was always done subtly except behind closed doors.

OH I had to re-read this a couple of times, because I was trying to figure out if you were really saying "she was turned on by the female trainees" i.e. was somehow a very loose bisexual girl who personally liked both you and the female trainees, or if you meant "she almost unanimously turned on the rest of the female trainees" i.e. they were all sapphic for her. Wow, does the sentence make more sense when I read it right.

I don't know how you could have phrased it better, but this perhaps is my punishment for skimming motte posts while sleepy.

A woman who communicates interest with a stranger even subtly is rare, outside an alcohol-drenched setting.

I've had it happen, but typically with extreme plausible deniability, in the sense that their interest could be understood platonically and their invitations to date could be understood as an invitation for a nice time with a friend. This could be an attempt not to look too eager/excessive/expoitable, unfamiliarity with how you clearly show interest to someone (women are often pretty bad at it, because they aren't forced to practice), a kind of hedging of bets in case someone isn't all that compatible, or plain simple insecurity and rejection sensitivity of the same kind that causes men to orbit sometimes instead of stating their interest clearly. Probably a mixture.

Reasonably attractive and not obviously insane women generally have so little experience with casual rejection (the female equivalent tends to be getting roasted and ghosted) that - well, imagine yourself in high school, never so much as asked out a crush before, going up to a girl and having her laugh in your face.

A while ago, someone had a post talking about feeling oddly disappointed by the bribes people associated with the Trump administration had been caught taking, as many of the dollar amounts seemed pitifully small.

Link

Thanks.

I find the obvious horse trading here fascinating, you kick out your sex pest and we kick out ours. I wonder how that convo went.

I'm assuming the congressional sex defense slush fund is running dry.

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