site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   18158 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.)

Women don't like it because they don't want a transactional relationship.

So this right here feels very illuminating. I said one thing and you appear to have heard something completely different. Why is that? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere here.

You did say that, in a population statistics kind of way.

If I was a woman, I would need some serious bonafides from a dude who knew what "SMV" stood for before I would grace him with a conversation. Are you writing a book? Are you a sociologist? Show me your substack and reddit accounts this instant, citizen.

It's like my enormous knowledge of various Wehrmacht bits of gear and my PZ-4-D/Stug 3/Tiger models: They encourage some questions, and it's fair to ask them; I need to show you my Sherman and T-34-85 and my precious idiot son, the KV-2 before you can exit the wehraboo danger zone.

the KV-2

You interest me strangely, tell me more about the idiot child!

Imagine a heavy tank chassis, with armor blessed by the hand of Stalin himself, so strong you needed to put the open end any self propelled direct fire gun the Nazi's had (at the time, don't bring up the panther or the later stugs) right up against it if you wanted to MAYBE get through. It is fast enough on the advance, given its weight. It has excellent clearance and doesn't sink in any mud because it's so chonky.

On top of this Chassis, put a fat boy humorously square turret, and inside this turret place a 152mm gun. Anything it hits even kinda close to is immediately rendered into its constituent molecules.

Unfortunately, this bitch is so fat that the best its engine can manage is a brisk jog, it's various sprockets exist in a state of infinite agony, screaming as the shortest but widest conscript they could jam through the hatches shifts it by putting both feet on the lever and leg pressing it into gear, all while being visible from the next country over on account of being as big as a house.

Even with all that, it's so tough that on at least one occasion it gets its tracks blown off and just sits there, getting shot at for a couple days until it finally runs out of ammunition.

It's the dumbest tank that ever actually put in good work in a real war, and lives on in fond memory.

You left out the part where they designed it with this massive steel-chunk of a turret containing a giant gun, and then neglected to procure an electric motor for rotating said turret. Some poor communist conscript fuck has to winch the thing around with a hand crank! And the turret's size and armament makes its balance worse, so if the tank is on a slope that hand crank is not only rotating the turret, but now lifting a giant off-center load uphill! Sometimes they turn out to be physically unable to work the turret around capitalist wreckers, but hey, the armor means they usually get plenty of time to work the problem.

Also, the 152mm gun is fairly low-velocity with non-fantastic performance against armor, but it turns out this doesn't matter if the HE shells are so powerful that the blast alone is sufficient to rip a German tank's turret clean off.

It's a thing of beauty!

Responding to filtered comment. The tank sounds cool though.

Fixed!

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