site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15230 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.

Yes men want some sex, but it's not their core driving impulse. Maybe for some hypersexual men but its a big world with a big range of libidos. Many don't want kids, some don't want partners. This convergence to "all men are just horndogs that want to pump out kids" is a weird conservative meme that refuses to adapt to contact with reality.

Well yeah, you’re essentially arguing with a meme conception of the idea, but underneath that caricature biology is still a real thing (and one that gives meaning to life incidentally).

I am using "meme" in the definition of the core metaphysical idea underlying a narrative or belief.

and one that gives meaning to life incidentally

See this is what I disagree with. So I don't think I am arguing with a caricature based on your emphasis of it as true. Biology has given me no meaning in life. This is like saying science tells you what matters. It's wrong. Biology put us on this world but does not define the meaning of our lives.

You are satirizing a position and arguing with its caricature. If you ask most people the world over as best as it’s been approximated thus far, most of them do want it, specifically for the reasons I’ve drawn attention to.

You are satirizing a position and arguing with its caricature.

Am I?

What do you want other than reproduction, to sit around high and distracted? That's your only other option.

OP has literarily stated here That the only point of life is to make offspring and everything else is a worthless distraction.

Yeah, and he’s basically correct.

He's very incorrect. I'd further postulate that its a very lonely and sad belief rooted in biological determinism. That is a stance but there is far more to life than making offspring. The comment below his points out a lot of ways its just a cope stance.

I guess if you are a staunch materialist/biological determinist, we are pretty much going to disagree due to values. However its worth pointing out I am not arguing with a caricature, it is a stated position. So if you still think I am tilting at windmills, I invite you to specify more clearly why.

He’s not incorrect insofar as most men the world over want sex and also children. Are these people all lying?

He's incorrect insofar as the only point of your existence is to have sex and children. The meaning of life is not "whatever biology says it is"

More comments

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