site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27240 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.

About 60% of female sexual partnerships are with the 10% most promiscuous men.

Notice the slight of hand there. 60% of partnerships with 10% of men. Not 60% of women sleeping with 10% of men, but 60% of partnerships.

Because those men are sleeping with...the most promiscuous women. Chads aren't monopolising all the girls, it's more that the frat boys are sleeping with the sorority girls and the young men and women who don't leave their rooms aren't hooking up.

That is 1 guy sleeping with 6 girls.

It's more like six guys sleeping with six girls, in various combinations. If the incel is upset that chad is 'monopolising all the women', that is mistaken. Because he isn't monopolising all the women, only the most promiscuous women. You could equally frame it as one promiscuous woman 'monopolising all the men' but that would also be wrong, for the same reason.

60% is counting pairings, not people.

For example, population 100 men and 100 women.

Top 10% men and 20% women each have multiple partners between each other, create 120 sets of "pairings". This is 10% men sleeping with avg 12 unique women and top 20% women sleeping with avg 6 unique men.

Other 90% men (0.89 partners each) and 80% women (1.0 partner each) create 80 pairings.

Here's a fictional population with similar numbers and no gender mismatches:

  • 90 women are in dedicated monogamous relationships with 90 men (90 relationships total)
  • 10 women have broken up and gotten together with each of 10 men (100 relationships total)

100/190 = 52.6% of partnerships are with 10/100 = 10% of men. It's one guy sleeping with ten girls, but it's also one girl sleeping with ten guys.

and the young men and women who don't leave their rooms aren't hooking up.

Quick question. If these young men and women were to leave their room, which would have an easier time getting laid?

Also dating apps means you can locate a hookup without leaving your room, funny enough.

Guess what dating app dynamics look like. What % of men would you guess are getting the most matches?

Even if your point about kids not leaving their room is correct, it doesn't actually refute the core issue.

If these young men and women were to leave their room, which would have an easier time getting laid?

faceh, the solution is for men to raise their standards. Get more picky. Stop thinking with your dick. Stop being pressured about "you have to get laid or else you're a virgin loser". Be as fussy as women!

You can have fifty whore women out there spreading their legs for any man with a pulse, but if no man is going to fuck them, then there is no "one guy sleeping with all the women". Prostitution doesn't exist unless there's a demand for it. I'm not saying sex work is real work, I'm saying if guys didn't want quick casual sex for relief, novelty, and just a meaningless fuck when they're kinda drunk or horny, then there wouldn't be whores or porn because there would be no market for it.

Guys wanted quick sex. They got it. Now they're complaining that women are behaving like men, in wanting sex without commitments, but not enough like men ('fuck it, he's breathing, that's good enough') in sleeping with them when asked.

If these young men and women were to leave their room, which would have an easier time getting laid?

Women, obviously, but that's been true since the beginning of time.

The thing is, 'getting laid' is not something women aim for. They want relationships. It's a failure of theory of mind to pretend that 'the ability to get laid' is a manifestation of female privilege when women don't want it.

Guess what dating app dynamics look like. What % of men would you guess are getting the most matches?

All the more reason to leave your room instead of staying inside scrolling. Tinder is difficult for guys primarily because the ratio of men to women is so skewed. That's like going to a DnD convention expecting to pick up girls.

Of course, zoomers have realised this, which is why the apps are in decline.

Oddly enough, D&D is becoming more and more popular among women and queer people. I know a surprising number of D&D groups where cis men are in the minority.

Yes, but those women all hate men unless they're gay.

I'm quite serious about this; the great proportion of the biological women who got into D&D, 5e specifically, are walking stereotypes of leftists with all the accompanying attitudes and annoying habits. Everything they don't like is a dog-whistle for something bad, every work of art is evaluated based on how queer it is, they're all "neurodivergent" as of six months ago, they formally announce their (she/her) pronouns in casual social interactions. The first words out of one of their mouths were a tirade about how someone gatekept her and mansplained her, another one would never go on a date with a man because "she doesn't want to get assaulted", then abruptly lavished affection on some random guy when he mentioned being gay. They're surrounded by the nicest, most cautious, most overwhelmingly leftist feminist anti-racist cis men you're going to find, and have nothing but scorn for them. These weren't people I was chasing or even chatting up, this was all ambiently observed. I have worse stories about the one I chased.

It's singularly upsetting for me that my fucking hobby puts me in contact with these people whenever I interact with any part of the hobby outside of my little NuSR club.

Women, by and large, do not want to 'get laid', they want to have a meaningful relationship which includes a sexual component. This is no easier for the fairer sex, and they run a few risks that are not realistic for a man to concern himself with.

There are some genuinely promiscuous women who enjoy sex for the sake of sex, but they're pretty minimal

'by and large'

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