site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16579 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Women are rarely interested in sex with a social status inferior. A man needs only relatively high social status compared to the type of woman he is interested in to have many accessible options.

If a man is not a combination of poor, fat, short, weakly, socially autistic, and ungroomed he should have a reasonable amount of options of sexually available young women. Only height is out of the control of a man, everything else can be improved with sustained effort.

The manosphere and all those weird “PUA” communities I’ve noticed have this strange vocabulary for describing things they don’t even understand. All their talk about how to become a “high value” man is so bizarre when you take into account that good men (even in the status department, not just their moral content) are often the ones who don’t get laid. Thugs, idiots, people with a “hood” accent, no direction in life, etc. Broken women generally play around in the milieu of broken men; because the latter are easier to control than well adjusted ones who won’t tolerate your bullshit. A man who can’t see past a woman’s games may be one she doesn’t respect, but will nonetheless have relations with. A man much her superior is one who can see through her games and won’t put up with her nonsense. The woman isn’t going to ‘not be who she is’, and the man isn’t going to compromise his integrity by allowing such a human wrecking ball into his life. That’s nothing but a recipe for conflict and disaster but in a democracy of two, one vote has to count more than the other.

All their talk about how to become a “high value” man is so bizarre when you take into account that good men (even in the status department, not just their moral content) are often the ones who don’t get laid.

Ummmm, citation needed.

Men with lower income (aOR for men with an annual income of ≥$50 000 vs $0-$9999, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.90]) and with part-time (aOR vs full-time employment, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.48-2.93) and no employment (aOR vs full-time employment, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.48-2.93) were more likely to be sexually inactive...

You want to come to my hood? I can show you in person.

I don't disagree with your points, but I was addressing strictly what improves male sexual access to women per @dailydogma and not women of good relationship potential.

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