site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   24982 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am saying that as far as advice to women for avoiding violence goes "Don't get into relationships with men" is worse than useless.

First, it makes all men out to be equally dangerous, as there is no attempt to distinguish between different men. Something that simply is not true. The statement is unnecessary fearmongering that necessarily includes himself, as he is a man.

Second, women want relationships with men and are going to seek them out. Women are going to fall in love and want sex and relationships regardless of what they yare told. Useful advice would be to warn women against dangerous traits so they know what to avoid. In the worst case, if you think that all men are equally dangerous you may fail to notice actual warning signs, as you assume every man would act the same way.

As a result, these kinds of statements only really serve to increase tension between the genders and cause excessive fear amongst women. It encourages them to be constantly suspicious of any man close to them, something that for most people is unwarranted and will only serve to reduce their quality of life.

I am not saying dangerous men are not out there, simply that his advice is bad for most people who will hear it. It is similar to advising men that they should avoid women entirely, to reduce risks of false accusations. Technically true, but bereft of nuance to the point of causing more harm than good.

First, it makes all men out to be equally dangerous, as there is no attempt to distinguish between different men. Something that simply is not true.

I think that's very reasonable, but I'm also curious as to what proportion of men you'd estimate are in the dangerous vs. safe category, and what clear warning signs a woman might use to distinguish between the two.

At least here on TheMotte, there are regular assertions in redpill threads that all men are secretly just as sexist (but lie to women about it, or else are leftist cucks who hold it in the silence of their hearts). Empirically, when women are being pilloried as subhuman irrational whores who need to be forced into line for the future of the race, it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims. That might lead a casual observer to conclude that yes, most men do either actively or passively feel resentment and contempt for women, that most men do regard women as less human than themselves, and that most many men would not mind correcting a female partner's behavior through some physical intervention if the opportunity presented itself, and that therefore "just don't" is not unreasonable advice, particularly for the type of woman whose relationship models might already have been distorted by past abusive parents or partners.

If that's not the case, what would be better advice about how a woman might gauge the odds of eventually experiencing violence at the outset of any given relationship?

it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims

As someone who doesn't speak up to contradict those claims, it's not because I tacitly agree with them, it's because a debate like this is not worth it:

  • I need to back my words with data, and no one cares enough this issue to publish a paper that seriously examines the moral worth of women and finds it equal to men's. Just like no one is actively remeasuring the curvature of the Earth to own the flat-earthers
  • "If you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, and only the pig likes it." Do I really want to challenge someone who's on his hobby horse? He's only too eager to talk more about his favorite topic, he has layers upon layers of battle-honed arguments, what are the odds that either of us changes their opinion?

So, when I see someone talk about the foids or the joos again, I just minimize the thread and get on with my day.

I am sure that a police officer probably knows much more about violent men than I (a person who has not been in a fight since middle school), and could thus give better advice. My social circle is quite respectful towards women, and the problem there is often that my friends are not forward enough. That said:

  1. Take some time getting to know him before having sex or committing. If you like to go clubbing, stick to places vetted by people you trust, and don't hook up with guys you just met.

  2. If he is violent towards other people, or you find out he has abused others in the past, then leave. Same goes if he is an addict, alcoholic, gang member, or otherwise a criminal. You can probably get quite far by observing the kinds of people he spends time around, and assuming he is similar to them. If he does not want you around his friends or is secretive about his personal life, that is a red flag in and of itself.

  3. Talk with him. If he makes degenerate remarks about women and you can't tell if he is joking, assume that he is serious. If a man has strong prejudices, they are likely to reveal themselves sooner rather than later. If he is needlessly disrespectful towards other women, assume that he will eventually be disrespectful of you.

  4. Make sure to have a good social group. Have friends with whom you can discuss your relationship and struggles so you are not on your own if you have to leave.

Not that any of this removes the risk completely (everything we do in life is risky to an extent), but I think it reduces the risk substantially. At least in my experience, most people will let their mask slip as you start getting to know them, and the kind of manipulator who keeps everyone fooled is very rare.

All of that is great advice for an emotionally healthy person, although I wonder how actionable any of this would be for the kind of person who's already imprinted hardcore on abusive relationship patterns over the course of a bad childhood and a few bad starter boyfriends. For that person, the cleanness of abstinence might genuinely be the best approach, like intermittent fasting for the person who can't manage their sugar cravings.

intermittent fasting for the person who can't manage their sugar cravings

Ah yes, the "I'm sufficiently antisocial on my own, so why can't everyone else be" solution. This isn't actually a problem with the women, by the way; much like it isn't actually a problem with the men who aren't self-aware enough to notice it.

The reason we tend to end up with people who are Cluster Bs to some degree, or at least have some of that behavior- is that it's very difficult to find ourselves, as it were. So what ultimately ends up happening is that, much as the proto-feminists note, is that we kind of end up boxing off/contain the other member. In other words, we settle, for what you may (or may not) know in the workforce as a "shitty" or "subpar" boss, because we're not made of stone and actually do require human companionship.

And that whole "I get to be the authority and better than you" thing is just as much a payment from participant to participant as financial resources and everything else is. We don't teach the nature of this exchange very much[0]- mainly because the question makes men and women who should notice it very uncomfortable, especially in Western nations, and especially especially in New World ones. That attitude has a lot of pros, but this is one of its weaknesses.

Empirically, when women are being pilloried as subhuman irrational whores who need to be forced into line for the future of the race, it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims.

Yes, because doms take not being better than [their] subs very personally, and it's very important for their proper functioning they get to do this! Both partners do this from time to time; women usually exhibit it differently than men, almost like they compliment each other or something.

[0] By the way, the core of the BDSM movement are mostly autistic weirdos who have both noticed this and have it under control, or use it to keep it under control (or are weird/open enough to cosplay or cargo-cult it). This is why it usually makes relationships go sideways when one or more non-autists get a hold of it, especially when they start saying "liberation".

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