site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16143 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.

How would men appreciate it if women started discussing frankly "Look, you'll be 35 in two years. That's way too old if I'm thinking of having kids with good prospects. You better set your sights lower, some 40+ woman done with childbearing will probably take you if you smarten up, get rid of those awful clothes, and hit the gym" 😂

The data suggested that once a dad hits age 35, there's a slight increase in birth risks overall - with every year that a man ages, he accumulates on average two new mutations in the DNA of his sperm - but birth risks for infants born to fathers of the subsequent age tier showed sharper increases.

Compared with fathers between the ages of 25 and 34 (the average age of paternity in the United States), infants born to men 45 or older were 14 percent more likely to be admitted to the NICU, 14 percent more likely to be born prematurely, 18 percent more likely to have seizures and 14 percent more likely to have a low birth weight. If a father was 50 or older, the likelihood that their infant would need ventilation upon birth increased by 10 percent, and the odds that they would need assistance from the neonatal intensive care unit increased by 28 percent.

Gentlemen! You want to maximise your SMV for long-term commitment? Go out there between age 20-24 and sell yourself as eager to be a dad before your genetic stock plummets! 🤣

"Women age like milk, men age like wine" means that eventually you get cheese and vinegar.

Depends if the women in question are reading Aria Shrecker? (They should be, she's great)

The best age of man to target is probably younger than you think. I think you should focus your attention on men in their mid twenties. In my poll, the average age of men in relationships was 31, two years older than the single men, but they met their wives/girlfriends at a median age of 25. I recommend any woman 27 and younger to aim for people in their mid twenties. They are probably not thinking about marriage yet but they will be after a couple of years. And they haven’t hit their peak sexual market value yet so you can buy a great guy at a discount.

My view is that (1) don't cohabit - free milk and the cow rule (2) if he's not willing to entertain the idea of marriage after a couple of years, move on. If women are on the biological clock, beauty and fertility have a shelf life, and you do want marriage and children, don't waste time on a guy who is not ready to settle down but thinks he has until he's forty to decide if he does want a missus.

I think if women were a lot pickier than they are, there would be more marriage and children. That might be tough on the guys who think "hey, I'm only thirty, I'm in my prime, I want to play the field and not get tied down, men are naturally promiscuous that's just evo-psych" but they can't have that and complain that women are promiscuous and flighty if they're sleeping with men and not marrying them. If you want that traditional wife (or husband), you have to abide by traditional rules.

It's a coordination problem. While an individual woman can decide that she wants to e.g. get married before having sex, the guy she wants probably won't be willing to go with that, and so will find another girlfriend. If she's super hot she might be able to drive a harder bargain, but it would still probably entail going for a less eligible guy than she would otherwise be able to get (in which case 'pickiness' would work against her goals).

That's why (relative) sexual conservatism really only works within religious subcultures. In those groups, everyone is on the same page about what is expected.

Aria has a planned post called 'Dump early, dump often' which I expect would be her way around this conundrum.

How would men appreciate it if women started discussing frankly "Look, you'll be 35 in two years. That's way too old if I'm thinking of having kids with good prospects. You better set your sights lower, some 40+ woman done with childbearing will probably take you if you smarten up, get rid of those awful clothes, and hit the gym"

If it were true (which it is generally not), it would be rather refreshing to men who are constantly having to try to figure out the truth behind the lies they get all the time. Having two things he knows are significant and he can do something about (awful clothes and out of shape) would probably leave him overjoyed.

But he can't turn back the clock, and being told (as a man) that your best years are behind you once you hit 30 would probably be hurtful as well. 'You're too old now, you're 29 and never got married, all you can hope for is that some cougar will take pity on you and make you her toy-boy' - well that's just a straight-talking assessment of your SMV, not a rejection of you as a whole person?

Of course women have no problem rubbing it in men's face that they peak earlier and thus get to spend their youth in the privileged position over men. Then they get conceited and believe that privilege is the natural order and are thus horrified by men's later peak suddenly reversing that and exposing them to the exact same treatment they dished out when they were younger.

Yes, but he's a man -- that part isn't actually true.

How would men appreciate it if women started discussing frankly "Look, you'll be 35 in two years. That's way too old if I'm thinking of having kids with good prospects. You better set your sights lower, some 40+ woman done with childbearing will probably take you if you smarten up, get rid of those awful clothes, and hit the gym" 😂

Well, except for "some 40+ woman done with childbearing will probably take you", men do in fact listen to and take all that other advice you mention!

How would men appreciate it if women started discussing frankly "Look, you'll be 35 in two years. That's way too old if I'm thinking of having kids with good prospects. You better set your sights lower, some 40+ woman done with childbearing will probably take you if you smarten up, get rid of those awful clothes, and hit the gym" 😂

"Would?"

In 2023, approximately 9.8% of infants in the United States were admitted to a NICU. Let's assume I have the average risk profile (I don't), then a 14% increase brings that up to 11.2%. In other words, from my perspective it's an imperceptible increase in risk for me to have kids after 45. In contrast, an average woman at 35 is already at about 2/3 her peak fertility, and by 40 is below 10%. Apples and oranges my friend.

Apples and oranges my friend.

The preferred terminology is "whisky and milk"

Although "apples and oranges" actually works - apples are climacteric and so can continue to ripen after picking, whereas oranges and other citrus fruits are not and need to be picked fully ripe and eaten quickly. But this is not obvious because (unlike, say, bananas) intentionally ripening apples in your fruit bowl is not a big part of how you eat them.

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