site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   7232 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 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.

The problem with this is that males become a kind of elite celebrity class, where the average male will have higher social status than the average female. Women would probably get jealous at this state of affairs. Many women would think, "why couldn't I have been born a man?" It wouldn't look like a feminist utopia.

I legitimately think that female envy (which is what drove Western Feminism) requires something of a low-status male slave class to rule over. Similarly, humans only think themselves rich when they have poorer neighbors to compare themselves with.

From this perspective, the humane solution to female emancipation is something like male p-zombies. Of course, that would require a Big Lie, so is it really humane?

Similarly, humans only think themselves rich when they have poorer neighbors to compare themselves with.

But do people really desire this? I would say the evidence points to people in general wanting to live around and interact with people in their own economic class, not live as a king among the poors.

I think women looking for men are mostly similar to this, they might want the best mate they can get but are perfectly fine with having a mate roughly as good as their peers.

We are kind of talking past each other. It is true that the rich do not desire to interact with the poor. But it is also true that a person prefers to be rich than to be poor. When you think about it, that's a little crazy! You'd think a persons preference would be something like "I want a washing machine" but actually, people prefer to be rich than to be poor.

I think it means we do desire to know ourselves to be Kings. We just don't want to be the only King -- how lonely!

But do people really desire this? I would say the evidence points to people in general wanting to live around and interact with people in their own economic class, not live as a king among the poors.

America is unusual among societies with relatively high inequality in that the "rich" class arranges things to make it easier to avoid poors 100% of the time, not to make it easier to hire servants with the tradeoff of only being able to avoid the other poors 90% of the time. I don't know if this is because America has a cultural norm of fake egalitarianism which makes people want servants less, or if it is because America is worse at policing such that people are willing to make more tradeoffs to avoid poors.

This is because of measures designed by real egalitarians ostensibly to help the poor, such as minimum wage and nanny taxes. Of course, if you can't hire poors to work for you (unless you're Elon Musk rich and not just two-doctor household rich), you're best off avoiding them entirely.

Two doctor households in Texas- or one doctor households- regularly hire nannies and housekeepers. Of course, we have very high inequality by US standards. But a cleaning lady once or even twice a week merely requires one to be middle class if it's a priority, or upper middle if it isn't.

Hiring a cleaning lady once or twice a week is hiring a contractor, either under the table (cheap, illegal, but negligible chance of punishment) or through some agency which handles the formalities (expensive and legal). That's different than having a servant or servants who only work for you.

Two doctor couples in the UK routinely hire a full-time nanny and a part-time housekeeper, and we have less inequality and higher taxes than you do, so there is something other than taxes or wage compression preventing Americans hiring servants.

It's not "fake egalitarianism", it's a genuine egalitarianism that a lot of our "elites" and "elite aspirants" think is fake and this discontinuity is a major driver of tensions in the culture war.

When affluent liberals talk about how we need illegal immigrants because they do the jobs Americans wont. What they are saying in effect is that they don't think that people who pack meat or clean toilets should earn American level wages. To put it another way, they don't think they should have to pay "the help". They are saying that what they want is not employees but rather an underclass who they can exploit. And because there is a genuine norm of egalitarianism in the US this desire for an underclass is interpreted by many as a deliberate act of disrespect towards not just the class of people who pack meat and clean toilets, but towards the entire American experiment.

Illegal aliens do not make less than native citizens working the same jobs, but are more willing to work those crappy jobs to begin with.

Women would probably get jealous at this state of affairs. Many women would think, "why couldn't I have been born a man?" It wouldn't look like a feminist utopia.

They already say all that. Why should we actually give them the low-status male slave class? Go, 1/10 gender ratio fanfiction made reality!

Why should we actually give them the low-status male slave class?

Who is "we" here? If you're posting this then you can just not give women what they want.

The rest of society will just give them what they want though.

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