site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5830 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can you model a situation for me where a man, otherwise engaged in conversation with a woman (so, not busy) refuses the latter kind of favor?

Sure, there are a group of people in the lounge of a college dorm. A man and a woman are talking. The woman mentions that she has a friend coming over and wants to prepare something for her and her friend to eat. She asks the man if he can go to the kitchen and open a jar for her while she makes a call on her phone. She tells him he can should open the jar and then put the cap back on loosely.

The favor of opening the jar here is overshadowed by the favor of fetching her jar while she is doing nothing useful.

For the record, what I imagine as the modal case of helping open a jar is one where the woman is actively making dinner and is in the process of trying to open the jar.

I think this clarifies why I'm confused as well. Bidding a man to do something and he does it is lame. He should turn her down, but it will not lead to attraction, or she wouldn't have done that to begin with. Making fun of a woman for how short/weak she is and then helping her in a flirty way if cool and fun.

The favor of opening the jar here is overshadowed by the favor of fetching her jar while she is doing nothing useful.

Ok, but so what? Context matters. I already said this:

Something very small, like opening a jar, might have a de minimus impact depending on the context.

You seem to agree that context matters, since you added conditions to the example: The man is not busy; the jar is immediately available to him; etc.

In any event, the message sent to men is NOT "You can improve your outcomes with women by being kind to them in strictly limited circumstances. Be sure not to do anything which is an over-investment or which is demeaning or otherwise might lessen respect."

I do not observe that the message sent to men is "be a manservant to all women you know", either.

I do not observe that the message sent to men is "be a manservant to all women you know", either.

The message sent is to be kind, considerate, etc. Would you agree that there are acts which might be considered "kind" or "considerate" but would also fall into the category of "mildly demeaning," such as holding a purse?

I wouldn't thinking of holding someone's purse as a central example of being kind or considerate, no. I can't recall ever doing that for someone, or asking anyone to do it for me, the whole thing about purses is that they're portable.

I wouldn't thinking of holding someone's purse as a central example of being kind or considerate, no.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You are saying that holding someone's purse for them (upon request) is not something which is "kind" or "considerate"?

It would depend on context. If another woman asked me to hold her purse because she thought she was above me, then no it would not be unkind or inconsiderate to refuse. But if there was a good reason, then yes.

It would depend on context. If another woman asked me to hold her purse because she thought she was above me, then no it would not be unkind or inconsiderate to refuse. But if there was a good reason, then yes.

Well, I don't know if you are a man or a woman. But let's suppose that you are a man; for whatever reason you are at the same event as a woman you know (but aren't close to); you are talking; and she asks you to hold her purse while she goes to the ladies' room. Do you think it would be "kind" to hold her purse for her?

More comments

There are. I'm not under the impression that there is no message at all that would teach boys that bending over backwards for everyone is not really good for them, though.

As the other poster said, I just don't recall being taught to be kind and considerate and thinking "I'm gonna fetch shit for girls". I was thinking more like, I dunno, holding the door for the person behind me.

There are.

Ok, which shows that men are sent a message which is misleading at best and false at worst.

As the other poster said, I just don't recall being taught to be kind and considerate and thinking "I'm gonna fetch shit for girls"

Good for you. Certainly there are a lot of men out there who (1) internalize the message to be nice; and (2) act nice in ways which undermine their success with women.

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