site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11d ago (text post)   24714 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.

If I was a girl and hear someone say Suicidal Empathy I would put that right up there with SMV. Even conservative women would cringe at that sort of line, because of the implications. You gotta keep that shit on the forums.

This is a forum.

The funny thing with giving women the right to vote is now we have the evidence (partisan splits) that either women or men should not have the right to vote. One side has to be correct - right? Which means the other side shouldn’t get to vote.

Married women vote like their husbands. Single women vote for the left. So instead, a modest proposal- male heads of household get an extra vote for every dependent, including co-resident children.

What’s interesting though is that the split was long-predicted but took nearly a century to actually develop. Which would seem to moly there are other factors that have recently separated men’s and women’s joint interests.

That other factor would be the decline of marriage, which was predicted by anti-suffragettes. Social conservatives are always Cassandra, eventually.

Of course, many of the predictions of anti-suffragettes(Women will begin wearing pants!) are, from the perspective of even many on the right, firmly in the territory of 'it happened and it's a good thing'.

Maybe; could be that if you take the average of two biased perspectives you get closer to reflecting the true state of things.

At the moment, Men are the ones who are in their feelings about everything, 'Wah wah wah dating is hard, my wife is legally allowed to leave me if I beat her, I'm lonely, I want cheap treats but also I want my job to be easy and pay well and everyone should respect me'.

Real I want all my groceries in one bag but I don't want the bag to be heavy behavior.

It will eventually either normalize or shift the other way as it always does, but you do get tired of the bitching in the meantime.

Maybe; could be that if you take the average of two biased perspectives you get closer to reflecting the true state of things.

This is correct.

Let's say women in general tend left and men in general tend right. This would give you the situation we see at the moment, where sometimes the left wins and sometimes the right wins, and swing voters matter a great deal in directing which way it goes. This is plausibly superior to "the left always wins" or "the right always wins".

Of course, since we've seen male-only electorates, we have a pretty good idea of what a single-sex electorate would actually do, which is not that so-and-so partisan split always wins. Rather, both major parties will orient around the median voter. In a male-only electorate, the Overton Window of politics is probably further right than it is right now, but government still swings back and forth between the less-right and the more-right parties. Replace 'right' with 'left' and that's likely what you get in an all-female electorate.

It would be the just world fallacy to suggest that the electorate at present has the Overton Window in exactly the right place. It is, however, not obvious that the current state of the electorate is worse than either the right-tilted male electorate or the left-tilted female electorate.

It's worth noting that the incorporation of women voters tilted politics more socially conservative for a good half-century.

One side has to be correct - right?

I'm not sure this follows. Democracy is meant to represent the collective will of the people, not find the correct answer to a binary question.

If 60% of the country votes for the dog party and 40% for the cat party, our conclusion should be that 60% of state pet funding should go to dogs and 40% to cats, not that cat voters should be disenfranchised because they answered 'wrongly'.

In that situation dogs win every vote and can vote against cat interests despite cats having 80% support among cat voters. So cats would probably prefer to live in a country that is filled with cat voters because then they can vote in pro-cat legislation.

There's a particular pathology I sometimes see on this forum (and generally wherever high-decouplers congregate to argue) which is along the lines of "the majority of people disagree with my political views by at least epsilon. Given that this means the world is wrong and evil, should I kill myself or go on a murder spree?". It seems to be based on a questionable deduction from the observation that intransigent camps in politics tend to get an unfairly large share, and high-decoupler aversion to changing one's value function (something about Murder-Gandhi, the orthogonality hypothesis etc).

Yeah, and as someone who likes talking to/is a weirdo I don't get it. A majority of Westerners who live in say Dubai aren't monarchists yet seem to manage just fine. IDK I disagree with a lot of modern politics but also being a modern westerner is fairly easy. IDK why these types can't just be like "the world is fucked, fuck the powers that be" I'll tend to my own family and my own garden.

What about Pathological Altruism?

Still bad!

Portraying any of the biblical virtues as bad or wrong in some way is gonna come off as, if I may, Satanic to any normie westerner.

As in, made up?

I don't think normie westerners think in terms of things being "satanic" or not. Do you mean in the actual IRL church-of-satan sense, or the Satanic Panic sense? Or do you mean bizzarro-verse inverse Christian values?

Either way, all the satanic iconography and tropes are basically fanfiction.

The median person thinks of 'satanists' as occultist weirdos dabbling in animal cruelty- and possibly committing serious crimes with human victims. Not the edgy shit made up by a topless bar manager in the 60s. You're correct that it's probably not a go-to insult, but it is not a word with positive, neutral, or even only mildly negative connotations. Normies have a very positive impression of Christianity and biblical values, even if they don't personally practice it.

As in, something that a Saturday morning cartoon villain would say as a shorthand to indicate to the audience "I am evil as I am opposed to your hegemonic cultural values inculcated by centerius of being more or less christian!"

And totally separate from the colloquial meaning of the word; you've got tot talk to more conservative normies. They are Deep in that shit. A majority of the republican parties' voting population (maybe, data is fuzzy here) are committed believers in the red skin horns on head spaded tail actual DEVIL, it doesn't matter that it's all fanfiction, it's real to them.

Formerly niche high IQ movement that went a little mainstream with normies that crashed and burned

What is the implication?

That you are a piece of shit that will take advantage of her and then dip, because you don't respect empathy as a cardinal virtue.

Tell me you have read Aristotle without telling me you haven’t read Aristotle.

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