site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24391 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 15, 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.

I mean, one need only look at the highly religious today to see how fathers react to these sorts of things. I know that if I went to a burlesque (or the modern equivalent) and my dad found out, his reaction would be some mix of disappointment, disgust, and anger. And my reaction would be the same if I had a son do the same.

To be fair I've never seen any 'burlesque' that didn't consist entirely of glaringly-unattractive women, and that per se would be enough to have me disappointed and disgusted in my hypothetical son. Overlooking the lack of talent among the 'dancers' due to some kind of sick fascination with the aesthetic scans to me as similar to an extreme foot fetish or unhealthy obsession with The Rocky Horror Picture Show or something. Not something you want to see surface in your child.

I mean, one need only look at the highly religious today to see how fathers react to these sorts of things

I tend to disagree with this. People who are highly religious have, generally speaking, been trained to adhere to certain values. Therefore, the reaction of a highly religious father is not necessarily representative of the reaction of fathers in general.

My hypothesis is that women instinctively get upset when men receive inexpensive sexual gratification. Therefore, it (arguably) doesn't matter if the woman is a progressive, religious, or whatever. Only if she has been trained to be sex positive will she stay calm. Even then, it won't take much to convince her that inexpensive sexual gratification for men is exploitative or otherwise destructive.

Admittedly, I don't have rigorous evidence to support this hypothesis, but it does seem to fit observable reality pretty well.

Yes, the reaction is equivalent to how the highly progressive mothers react to these sorts of things, because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good. (One might even say that the highly religious father is the exact spear counterpart.)

It's really not any more complicated than that. You just get butthurt you can't control sex because that's what your primate brain tells you is important, so out come the rationalizations. Oh no, a female leg, so scandalous.

Yes, the reaction is equivalent to how the highly progressive mothers react to these sorts of things, because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good.

I would say it depends on which sect and which religion. But I do agree that a lot of Christian churches in the West have gone in for gynocentrism. For gynocentrists, inexpensive male sexual gratification is a problem. Because everything is supposed to be about women. The purpose of men is to serve women and it's a problem if a man has independent desires and needs which get met without serving women.

Because everything is supposed to be about women.

Which itself is an understandable liability if you're coming from 'everything is supposed to be about marriage' and have no mechanism beyond the inherent constraints of pre-mechanized civilization to grant value to men (who are the gender made to combat them). And that degraded over a few generations rather than all at once (and hidden because the generation in power was granted a reprieve from this due to WW2), so no decisive reckoning happened, like a divorce that occurs over 20 years for the sake of the kids.

The problem with being yoked to first century sexual mores is that it's not the first century any more, and part of the reason reconciliation can't be sold to women (or their simps) is that the traditionalist response tends to be some variation of "well, just make it the first century again, then all your problems will be solved" (and the liberal and progressive reaction to that is flat rejection, which is correct).

The degree to which solutions lack theory of mind remains interesting to me. For instance, if you're fighting "rates of female education attainment lead to later fewer marriages", the correct answer is "credentialism sucks the life out of everyone" and not "well, stop educating women exclusively then lol".

The problem with being yoked to first century sexual mores is that it's not the first century any more, and part of the reason reconciliation can't be sold to women (or their simps) is that the traditionalist response tends to be some variation of "well, just make it the first century again, then all your problems will be solved" (and the liberal and progressive reaction to that is flat rejection, which is correct).

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Would you be able to briefly describe your view of how things worked in the first century?

The degree to which solutions lack theory of mind remains interesting to me. For instance, if you're fighting "rates of female education attainment lead to later fewer marriages", the correct answer is "credentialism sucks the life out of everyone" and not "well, stop educating women exclusively then lol".

I don't understand this either. What exactly do you mean by lacking "theory of mind"?

because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good

My dad (and myself) don't agree with this though? We both would disapprove of both attending a burlesque show and performing in one. "Man and woman both bad, unless they turn to God and repent" would be our view.

You just get butthurt you can't control sex because that's what your primate brain tells you is important, so out come the rationalizations.

Oh wow, tell me more about what I actually believe and why using your mystical evo-psych bullshit powers, please!

My dad (and myself) don't agree with this though? We both would disapprove of both attending a burlesque show and performing in one. "Man and woman both bad, unless they turn to God and repent" would be our view.

I'm not sure what sect you follow, but I definitely get the sense that a lot of religious sects have gone in for gynocentrism. For example, Matt Walsh observed that it's extremely common in churches for (1) the mother's day sermon to tell everyone how Wonderful mothers are; while (2) the father's day sermon tells everyone how fathers need to Do Better.

Let me ask you this. It sounds like you are Christian. Do you believe that traditional Christianity endorses male leadership? If so, how often is that point made by the authority figures in your church?

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