site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   18045 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.

3
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?

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.

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.

Professional seduction is definitely more than today's girls are trained in. You have to come on harder than a regular expression of female interest, because you actually want that particular man to respond rather than wait for the most bold one. But also if you make it look too good to be true, you'll make him suspicious.

Seduction is the first step. Women's sexual talents exist on a normal distribution like everything else. A honeypot who can't fuck can't do their job - I'm not going to spill my guts for a woman who gives unenthusiastic, toothy head.

This is why one of the CCP's screening questions for potential honeypots is "Do you enjoy the music of Taylor Swift?"

I may be contributing more than necessary to this thread but in my experience girls are awful at seduction unless they're very quick studies or have a lot of practice.

Exactly. A large part of modern dating dysfunction is both genders not knowing how to 'do the dance' especially with the introduction of modern technology. Impulses that'd maybe play out as a come hither thing in fleeting in-person contact don't work on apps or over DMs.

Yeah women shouldn't be seducing men, men need to have agency to perform sexually. All women need to do is express a bit of interest to the point that the man has the confidence to get it up and to know that she's not going to turn him down. The more she does the more likely she is to scare him off. Man being scared off is off-putting to a woman as well who at least wants a man to have the confidence to believe he is worthy of screwing her.

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.

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