site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   16344 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't see the connection between this and Gamergate. At best, you could say "this game causes gamers to be attacked as pedophiles" which fits with the Gamergate narrative ("gamers attacked").

My only exposure to controversy about the game was people calling it sexualized, creepy, and pedophilic. The people who call this game perverted are themselves gooners. They are kind of like woke people who call DnD racist for having low-intelligence orcs. It is a kind of self-report. "Strong man protects little child" is completely normal and wholesome in media. It does not therefore become un-wholesome because the child is loli-coded.

Pedophile is becoming more common attack de jour among the Extremely Online. I expect it will follow a similar path of the word "racist." Concretely, I expect within the next decade, a new round of MeToo/cancel culture to include cancelling men for being "pedophiles" but this will not involve any legal proceedings. The "pedophilia" in question will just be age gap relationships (not harassment!).

If this prediction is true, then it would be unsurprising to see the newest term of derision applied early to an easy target like gamers.

In short, I think the controversy is caused by:

  1. perverts sexualizing the game (even though it is not sexual)
  2. getting mad at it (because straight male sexuality is taboo)

I'll probably regret asking, but how is the robot daughter in the game 'loli-coded'?

Only in the relative sense, like compared to Baby Yoda.

The admin of Kiwi Farms claims that she looks too good, with lip gloss, makeup, and a ridiculously fancy hair style, which implies intentional sexualization.

a ridiculously fancy hair style

I haven't seen all the images so maybe there's one where she does have her hair done, but God damn, if "long hair not tied back or up" is considered ridiculously fancy, I better not show anyone that photo of me when I was nine and hadn't even brushed my glossy, long, tresses when the photo was taken!

Here's the full quote of his opinion.

By the way, someone posted this [image of Sarah Miller from The Last of Us] at me on Xitter and I think they thought it was an epic slam dunk.

But, uh, it kind of immediately proves me point. It's an even better point of reference than Ellie [also from The Last of Us]. If you compare that girl to Diana it is even more starkly obvious than Ellie why Diana is so fucking creepy.

Sarah Miller:

  • Flat, short hair (juvenile haircut).

  • Knobbly nose.

  • Close together facial features (neotenic feature)

  • Far-apart eyes.

  • Natural complex and lips.

  • Thin, fuzzy eyebrows.

This looks like a real child.

Diana:

  • Waist-length hair that is featured like a pageant girl.

  • Extreme blush.

  • Lipgloss.

  • Plucked eyebrows.

  • Dark, painted eyelashes despite being blonde.

  • Facial features are further apart like an adult woman's.

  • Facial features are both hyper-realistic and also completely blown out like she has foundation on.

  • Facial features are completely symmetrical like a Sims character.

Like come the fuck on JUST LOOK AT HOW SHE IS MADE UP.

How can you sit there and lie to my face? How can you say that these are the same designs that serve the same innocent purpose?

If you think this is the same thing you have autism. You should not have paternal instincts activated because you have autism and your paternal instincts are broken.

The website's users seem to be more or less evenly split on whether they agree with him.

Looking at the eyebrows in both pictures, they seem the same to me (and you don't have both thin and fuzzy eyebrows). The Sarah picture (the one on the left, I'm presuming) also has glossy lips and light sheen on skin.

Main difference is lighting, warm versus cold tones, and one has short hair showing off her ears plus freckles.

People that want to see Diana as paedo sex doll are gonna see that, no matter what we argue.

If you compare that girl to Diana

Surprised nobody seems to have made a "child" / "child, Japan" joke there. I think that is by itself enough to explain the difference without the need for allegations, Asian vidya and media in general are less ashamed(?) of making their characters straightforwardly cute or funny pretty.

In any case I don't buy this implication that little girl + pretty = pedobait, not from overly-online scolds and not from Null. Hypersensitivity and beauty being in the eye of the beholder aside, his seems like a fully general argument against including anything any sick fuck can theoretically enjoy in any medium - so basically against anything ever, since if it exists it has porn of it, surely Null is not unaware even sarah_miller (even fucking Roll, ffs!) returns non-zero hits on the relevant websites? The only winning move is not to play, and not let lolicons live rent-free in your walls.

Or, to paraphrase:

Sarah Miller: I wasn't attracted to this, and she is kind of homely. I'm not attracted to butch haircuts or neotenous features, so that means nobody else would ever be either. By the way, I did not get along with the girls when I was in elementary school.

Diana: I was attracted to this, and that made me uncomfortable. This means other people will be attracted to this temptress too, and that's a thoughtcrime and bad. This is especially funny because of where I'm posting this opinion. Anyway, I think pedophiles would choose this one, 100%, even though I just got done explaining about how this looks nothing like an actual kid.

(This is mainly because I don't actually think "pedophilia" has anything to do with actual kids, and is more about policing men around young women, which my mind tells me this is; obviously this here is an attempt to get around that.)

This isn't really that difficult to understand.

I'll take "telling on myself" for 500, Alex.

Yes! The whole situation is bizarre. It's like something that would only be found in an Onion article twenty years ago. Lots of people revealing either pedo tendencies or just plain misandristic bigotry.

(The words misandrist and misandristic are still not part of the google gboard (Android keyboard) word list btw)

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