site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12629 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.

Traditional society was a 'suck it up, life is hard' system that worked because things sucked equally for both genders. Men got an unfair amount of agency, and in return, women got an unfair amount of protection.

Feminism correctly pointed out that industrialized society should not be beholden to this survivalist system. In practice, they've focused on increasing agency for women, while fiercely guarding the protections of the erstwhile survivalist system.

Men have no competing movement because asking for protection is humiliating in erstwhile male society. Credit where it is due, Suffragettes did not get the credit they deserve for persisting with their non-woman-like behavior in public.

Asking for legal protections because you got cucked is humiliating. Asking for alimony from a wealthier ex-wife is humiliating.

One day, men will have their feminist movement. To men of this era, It will be ugly. It will look like boys becoming twinks. It will look like weak men refusing to take responsibility. It will look like welfare queens. As much as this forum is pro-men, I bet the shape of the eventual pro-men movement will disgust the median man on here.

Feminism correctly pointed out that industrialized society should not be beholden to this survivalist system. In practice, they've focused on increasing agency for women, while fiercely guarding the protections of the erstwhile survivalist system.

It's so correct in fact that it's in a mysterious decline and death whose start coincides with that of this particular barbarism of reflection.

Men will never have their feminist movement or perhaps only at the 11th hour when none of it matters. Industry didn't change our basic reality, the XXth century is the tragedy of people who thought it did and tried perhaps as hard as anybody did in history to escape human nature. The depth of their failure is so dizzying it captures all our political thought to this day.

Tradition will endure because it's transcendentally true. Even if it dies it will be rediscovered. We will not escape the shape and finitude of reality. The tower of Babel cannot be completed. Not by humans.

The tower of Babel cannot be completed. Not by humans.

Careful now, for some of these people your terms are acceptable.

Can you elaborate on what a "men's feminist movement" would look like? Boys can already become twinks and to an extent (some) men are able to refuse responsibility just fine. I think you might be under-estimating how many men (here) are so seeped in gender-conflict that they would prefer pro-men outcomes at the cost of any amount of disgust.

What pro-men outcomes do you think a "men's feminist movement" would have?

Men have no competing movement because asking for protection is humiliating in erstwhile male society.

I think the bigger issue is that men as a group have little or no in-group bias compared to women -- who have strong in-group bias. So it's much more natural for women to organize and lobby for goodies for women.

One day, men will have their feminist movement. To men of this era, It will be ugly. It will look like boys becoming twinks. It will look like weak men refusing to take responsibility. It will look like welfare queens. As much as this forum is pro-men, I bet the shape of the eventual pro-men movement will disgust the median man on here.

These sorts of things are extremely difficult to predict, but barring any game-changing development in technology, I think the far likelier outcome is that subgroups which raise men and women both to fulfill traditional roles will just out-breed everyone else. How can a modern liberal woman who goes to grad school and has 2 or 3 children compete with a Haredi or Amish woman who marries at 18 and has 6-10 children?

Even with a low in group preference you would think that men would organize jointly on matters that impact all men, like with the evolutionary disadvantage men have when it comes to ensuring paternity.

And, well, this is what they did historically. What we call patriarchy is mostly just a way of managing this problem.

I don't think it can be explained purely by low in group favoritism for that reason.

How can a modern liberal woman who goes to grad school and has 2 or 3 children compete with a Haredi or Amish woman who marries at 18 and has 6-10 children?

Convert their kids. Some people already have the illiberal instincts to justify this.

[Per Patrick Deneen]We were discussing the practice of Rumspringa—literally, “running around”—a mandatory time of separation of young adults from the community during which they partake of the offerings of modern liberal society. The period of separation lasts usually about a year, at the end of which the young person must choose between the two worlds. An overwhelming number, approaching 90 percent, choose to return to be baptized and to accept norms and strictures of their community that forbid further enjoyment of the pleasure of liberal society. Some of my former colleagues took this as a sign that these young people were in fact not “choosing” as free individuals. One said, “We will have to consider ways of freeing them.” Perfect liberal consent requires perfectly liberated individuals, and the evidence that Amish youth were responding to the pull of family, community, and tradition marked them as unfree.

I'm sure the state can do plenty of things to try to suppress fertility. We've arguably mastered that trick by accident.

Even with a low in group preference you would think that men would organize jointly on matters that impact all men, like with the evolutionary disadvantage men have when it comes to ensuring paternity.

Why would you think that at all?

Suppose we did make disestablishing paternity much easier, so random man who married badly is better off. Great for him, really. But does the cost of supporting and raising a family end up being paid by the true father? No. Instead, that cost is born by net taxpayers, which is something like the median man and above. Although I genuinely sympathize with the guy getting cucked by his wife, I'm going to press the red button so I don't get cucked by the State. In the end, he did have choices about who he married and slept with, and he chose badly.

Some of my former colleagues took this as a sign that these young people were in fact not “choosing” as free individuals. One said, “We will have to consider ways of freeing them.” Perfect liberal consent requires perfectly liberated individuals, and the evidence that Amish youth were responding to the pull of family, community, and tradition marked them as unfree.

This is curious, because Deneen and his ilk dislike liberalism for its threadbare consent-only worldview. But by that same worldview, the young people who return to the Amish lifestyle are perfectly legit. Who are you to second guess their choice? Have at it, Josiah.

I think Deneen just doesn't trust liberal promises. He is quite clear that he thinks liberalism is imperialistic and responds to weaknesses or contradictions in its own ideology or society by demanding more power towards itself and its imperatives. The standard for "freedom" is continually pushed back in ways that increase the power of the state.

The anecdote serves his purposes quite well in illustrating all these tendencies.

It's actually a criticism of his book raised by others: this doesn't really augur well for a Benedictine solution, which he gestures towards.

Even with a low in group preference you would think that men would organize jointly on matters that impact all men,

Why would you think that? I would seriously like to know your reasoning.

like with the evolutionary disadvantage men have when it comes to ensuring paternity.

Actually, being able to impregnate women and have other men pay to raise the resulting child is a huge advantage, at least for some men.

I'm sure the state can do plenty of things to try to suppress fertility. We've arguably mastered that trick by accident.

Doesn't seem to be working in Israel, and the US is next in line.

I think that because historically male led societies have been brutal to disfavored or enemy men but have general taboos against adultery, presumably cause men don't care if some man dies in a jail cell but care if they might get cucked.

As for child support cucking other men...yes, that would be great. But you can also be called for child support too AFAIK.

As for the Haredi, they're a much larger percentage of Israel's electorate than any conceivable US comparison.

I think that because historically male led societies have been brutal to disfavored or enemy men but have general taboos against adultery, presumably cause men don't care if some man dies in a jail cell but care if they might get cucked.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. From this, how does it follow that you would expect men as a group to organize in order to promote the interests of all men?

As for the Haredi, they're a much larger percentage of Israel's electorate than any conceivable US comparison.

Right, as I said the US is next in line. What do you think is happening with ultra-religious groups in the US? The answer is that -- for the most part -- their populations are exploding.

Not organize promote the interests of all men as a whole. But to protect against something all men have a reason to protect against.

Not organize promote the interests of all men as a whole. But to protect against something all men have a reason to protect against.

Ok, let me see if I understand your argument:

(1) At some point in the past, many male-led societies established social norms and laws against adultery;

(2) This shows that men can and do organize jointly on issues that impact all men;

(3) Therefore, in general one would expect men to organize jointly on matters that impact all men.

Is that your argument?

3 is too general. It's "Therefore we should expect men to continue to do so". My issue is that an inherent lack of in group preference alone can't explain it since past men figured out how to coordinate here.

More comments

Asking for alimony from a wealthier ex-wife is humiliating.

I don't know, Cernovich seems to be getting along okay.

If you’re in upper middle class circles men getting fat payouts from wealthier ex wives is pretty common and has been for probably 20 years now. Society has largely adapted to it.

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