site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15843 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.

Why do a lot of women not like acknowledging the practical aspects of dating? By this I mean that women appear to be put off by me simply discussing:

  1. The importance of looks (not just physical but also fashion) and how one might improve that (whether man or woman)
  2. The usefulness of economic concepts such as SMV and the dating market
  3. The biological clock for having kids (more apparent for women, but men also have degrading sperm quality with age)

Of course I'm not discussing these topic with women I'm trying to actually date, I'm not that autistic. But if you're trying to actually find a partner to settle down and have kids with, how do you not take all of these into account? Not only does it reek of impracticality, but on an even deeper level, it appears that any attempt to practically model the dating world at all produces a negative female reaction.

(Maybe it's because some of these women don't ever intend on having kids and therefore don't ever have to be realistic about dating.)

In my experience women are quite willing to discuss such topics, especially reproduction-related.

(I don't live in the USA though, might be cultural difference.)

More specifically: (3) is just an absolutely normal topic for discussing, just be more tactful -- age doesn't have mercy on anyone; (2) SMV and "marked" are too subjective. Even on the most primitive level, some people like blonds, some like black hair. People are repelled by claiming that attraction is universal, it's not.; (1) women LOVE discussing looks, like giving advice and disparaging people with suboptimal looks. They even like receiving advice on looks, but with a caveat, it's better too avoid saying bluntly "do like that beauty does", women become jealous (and rightfully), so be more tactful.

Overall, really, try to pay less attention to females' look, looks gonna wane, but personal qualities won't.

I would disagree specifically with the characterization of #2. You can still speak of a "used car market" even if used cars come in all sorts of varieties. No two used cars are the same, and the same scratch on a car will be okay for one person and not okay for another. Doesn't mean used car buyers or sellers are any less immune from the inherent implications of scarcity.

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! 🤣

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.

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