site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15258 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.

I think it's a pretty accurate summary of what the average woman hears when a man tries to talk about SMV with her, and probably why OP's female friends don't want to talk about the subject with him.

I'd add a signal for "you're too unattractive for me to be interested in dating" to the list too.

It's still unhinged.

Ok, so then the question is, why is this what the average woman hears when it's not actually what is being said?

Because people say things they don't mean and mean things they don't say all the time. One of the best ways to ruin your life as a woman is the believe a man that says "I'll stay with you for the rest of my life and use all my resources to raise our children together" and doesn't mean it. Since the average man doesn't go around talking about how a woman's SMV will drop as she gets older and has more children, a cautious woman has little to lose by treating the subject as a signal against long-term commitment, and may avoid a very bad outcome by doing so.

Ok, so then the question is, why is this what the average woman hears when it's not actually what is being said?

I think part of it is that when men discuss these issues, it suggests that they are part of an online subculture which is perceived as being hostile to women. At a minimum, that online subculture doesn't follow the normal rules that (1) you should never say anything unflattering about women as a group; (2) women's needs, desires, feelings, and well-being should be prioritized over those of men; etc.

One thing that's interesting about women is that unlike men, they have strong in-group bias. Here's an example of what I mean:

Suppose a man is Race X and he sees an online dating profile of a woman. And that profile says "NO men from Race Y! I prefer men of Race X" Most men in that situation would think to themselves "Great, I already have a leg up with this woman." By contrast, if a woman of Race X sees a dating profile of a man who says "No women from Race Y! I prefer women of Race X," she is going to be offended on behalf of her sisters from Race Y. She will think the man is a creepy fetishist. If she messages the guy, it will probably be just to tell him how much of a jerk he is.

The reality is that most men have certain sexual/romantic preferences and ideas when it comes to women. But generally speaking these cannot be discussed openly with women the man is interested in.

The same reason why when a woman says "it's not you, it's me, I'm just not ready right now", what a dating-savvy man hears is "it's absolutely you".

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