site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24275 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's part of what irked me about the article. It didn't feel like a very traditional perspective, despite coming from an allegedly traditional Orthodox woman. As you point out, and I am generally ignorant of, there are a lot of elements of the faith and the history of the church that are left unexplored relating to the topic.

But at the same time, one could argue that people are flocking towards 'traditionalism' in general since it is being presented as a solution to their modern problems. I'm not sure executions or formalized acceptance of being an incel are what they are looking for. So whilst I lament that there was a rather modern woman presenting herself and her modern problems as being Orthodox, I can also sympathize with her woes. She was having a hard time finding or formulating solutions within Orthodoxy, along with other people. That's a legitimate concern to raise, despite the alleged faults of the messenger.

To that extent the article serves as a sideways critique of much of the generally male dominated Traditional online discourse, that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes when it's not so clear that it is.

that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes

Of course, what people fail (perhaps intentionally) to realize is that traditionalism gave way to those modern woes. Which means that sure- be as Based and Trad as you want- but in 50 years you'll be right back where you started with the same problems Traditionalism failed to answer productively in the first place. This is the fundamental flaw of reactionary thought.

The biggest giveaway for this is the fact that "women don't think men are good enough, women most affected" is literally front and center in the article. Not to bang the "traditionalists are just yesterday's progressives" drum too hard here, but this is a pretty clear example of that[1].

Traditionalism does not have an answer for this[2]- in fact, it's one of its weak points, so weak that it was completely displaced by feminism!

So any productive solution to that problem is going to need to understand why traditionalism succeeded despite its failure to evolve any reason/why it never evolved any reason to have an answer for the modern environment, and which isn't just a barely-disguised way to vent about those said modern environment currently privileges ("muh sinful entitled whores").

But then again, people who are succeeding don't have reason to spend time thinking inventing novel sociopolitical philosophies (or spend time implementing, say, a series of technologies that could push society in that direction), especially ones that will only help the poor at the expense of the rich, and doubly so if it would require more effort.

[1] A meme of "X first" applied blindly/traditionally is destructive when X fail to serve the biological function that result in them needing to be first.

[2] Of course, much like communism, true traditionalism has never been tried.

Traditionalism does not have an answer for this

Of course, much like communism, true traditionalism has never been tried.

I would have to disagree, I think traditionalism is working reasonably well among groups such as the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews.

The solution seems to be (1) discourage people from engaging with outside people and ideas; (2) discourage people from casual/recreational dating; (3) give men a special path to obtain social status; and (4) heap social status on those who marry young and stay together.

I would have to disagree, I think traditionalism is working reasonably well among groups such as the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews.

Not really, no. Both groups are dependent on being embedded in modern cultures which tolerate (and in some cases, support) them. Yes, the Amish would do fine if they were the only ones around, but the fact is they are not.

This doesn't necessarily mean that "traditionalism" isn't a viable solution for individuals, only that it doesn't scale. (Of course the reason Amish/ultra-orthodox isn't a viable solution for most individuals is that part of the trad solution of both groups is insularism.)

Both groups are dependent on being embedded in modern cultures which tolerate (and in some cases, support) them.

If that's the test, then no identifiable group has ever had a culture which worked reasonably well. Literally everyone is dependent on the people around them not ganging up on them.

Literally everyone is dependent on the people around them not ganging up on them.

Every individual is. But, e.g., the United States is not dependent on that the way the Amish are.

Every individual is. But, e.g., the United States is not dependent on that the way the Amish are.

If the rest of the world decided to gang up on the United States, we'd be in a lot of trouble. Certainly economically. Possibly even militarily, although that's more of an open question. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's historically unusual for one political entity to have a decent shot at fending off the rest of the world combined.

Yes, the Amish would do fine if they were the only ones around

If you mean the only humans around in the world then maybe, sure. If you mean if they controlled solely their own territory absolutely - would they? The Amish don’t have an army or any real means of defending themselves while they live on some of the world’s best and highest yielding farmland. They aren’t welfare dependent in the way the ultra-orthodox are, but they are ultimately reliant on the United States’ power, military, borders and technological leadership. They live in a garden inside a nearly impenetrable geographic stronghold maintained by the United States.

The Amish seem to do OK in cartel ruled Mexico, they're not reliant on a strong state with an inexplicable soft spot for them. You're correct that they probably couldn't run their own country, but in a post apocalyptic world they'd just feed the hells angels for protection or something, they way peasants always have.

I meant if they were the only people in the world.

But then again, people who are succeeding don't have reason to spend time thinking inventing novel sociopolitical philosophies (or spend time implementing, say, a series of technologies that could push society in that direction), especially ones that will only help the poor at the expense of the rich, and doubly so if it would require more effort.

This reminds me of how Tolstoy, at his best, was writing absurdly complex, nuanced novels with portraits of dozens of interesting, flawed, human characters. And then he got everything he wanted, began to doubt himself, and started writing odd little folk tales and morality plays instead.

The original essay might have been improved by including some Tolstoy romantic pairings as archetypes, the way WASP writers always include archetypal Jane Austen pairings.

Dr. Samuel Johnson, the famous but now little read writer known mostly for the being the creator of the first English dictionary and the subject of the first biography, was desperate for money for much of his life. At first he relied on patronage from largely indifferent patrons, then he was able to rely more on Kickstarter book pre-order clubs and life became a little easier. Still fairly hard-scrabble though.

Then when he was maybe mid fifties, a good friend put in a word with the King and said that Johnson was a renowned writer, a fierce royalist and an all-around champion of British conservatism, and that the King might honour this with a permanent stipend.

From that day onward Johnson never completed and sold another book. He tried, but he spent too much time procrastinating in the pub and too much effort trying to get everything exactly right now he didn’t have to rush it out for money. It made him miserable.

People react to success and plenty in very unexpected ways!

the subject of the first biography

I'd just like to interject for a moment. Johnson's Life was not the first (English, I guess you mean?) biography. In fact, Johnson himself wrote the Life of Richard Savage.

a good friend put in a word with the King and said that Johnson was a renowned writer, a fierce royalist and an all-around champion of British conservatism, and that the King might honour this with a permanent stipend.

This is also incorrect. Johnson was a Tory, but also against the house of Hanover. As Boswell put it:

The accession of George the Third to the throne of these kingdoms, opened a new and brighter prospect to men of literary merit, who had been honoured with no mark of royal favour in the preceding reign. His present Majesty's education in this country, as well as his taste and beneficence, prompted him to be the patron of science and the arts; and early this year Johnson, having been represented to him as a very learned and good man, without any certain provision, his Majesty was pleased to grant him a pension of three hundred pounds a year[1105]. The Earl of Bute, who was then Prime Minister, had the honour to announce this instance of his Sovereign's bounty, concerning which, many and various stories, all equally erroneous, have been propagated: maliciously representing it as a political bribe to Johnson, to desert his avowed principles, and become the tool of a government which he held to be founded in usurpation. I have taken care to have it in my power to refute them from the most authentick information. Lord Bute told me, that Mr. Wedderburne, now Lord Loughborough, was the person who first mentioned this subject to him[1106]. Lord Loughborough told me, that the pension was granted to Johnson solely as the reward of his literary merit, without any stipulation whatever, or even tacit understanding that he should write for administration. His Lordship added, that he was confident the political tracts which Johnson afterwards did write, as they were entirely consonant with his own opinions, would have been written by him though no pension had been granted to him[1107].

Probably explains George RR Martin where combination of the excess of other events he's invited to, plus I'd imagine a sort of looming dread that if he releases the next book there's way more potential downside than upside for him in his current status in life.

He's already got enough money/clout that he's well past the point of diminishing returns for both, and being 'the guy who never releases the next novel' is probably less of an issue for him than 'the guy who released the next novel AND IT SUCKED'

It's a solution to some modern problems. People have been talking about aesthetics a lot lately, and if someone's problem is that they live in a grey box, and work on a smaller grey box inside of a larger grey box, where everything is lit with fluorescent tubes, then Orthodoxy can, indeed, solve their Beauty problem. It can solve the lack of a village problem, if they commit. It might solve their theological or hierarchical problems, depending on what they are.

But, yes, it won't solve their relational problems, especially if, as in the article, they're a woman holding out for a Good, strong, provider, leader sort of man around their own age. Or a man in want of a younger woman who's easy to please, cheerful, pretty, a good homemaker, but can also bring in an income before and after having young children. Those expectations are not solvable. A woman looking for a nerd to visit historical sites with might do fine, and then they might develop feelings for each other, if they're both the kind of person where reading Byzantine poetry is romantic, but the women in the article don't seem to be. It's utterly predictable that male Orthodox converts would always be going on about: Rome! Second Rome! Even Third Rome! Restore Constantinople! Of course they are, even normal men are apparently always thinking about Rome, and Orthodox men have even more Romes!

On the other hand, I've met a couple of these men. My husband, who's a big fan of Rome and aqueducts and whatnot, has been a bit weirded out by some Orthodox men who meet us and immediately start talking about some council or other, and their extremely strong opinions about the outcome thereof, for the entirety of lunch. I suppose they're autistic? But, still, autistic men who want to find friends and eventually wives do need to tune in a little bit to how deep into the old books they should get upon first meeting someone.

Tradcaths have a much lesser grade of these same problems(no birth control, like actually seriously, just short circuits around so so much of this 'how to have trad sexual ethics in a post sexual revolution world', for example), and we straight up tell our young men that women do not care about the third council of Constantinople or whatever, learn to talk about sports or work or something they have a framework for interacting with.

I suspect Orthodoxy is in the unenviable position, though basically no fault of its own, of attracting a certain type of person who thinks that their youth pastor and Pope Francis were both not hardcore enough.

So is traditional Catholicism- 'smoking the whole pack' when you bite down on trad seems to solve a lot of this stuff, even if it's not a magic bullet.

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