site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24319 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 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.

Welp, the incel hysterics can go to sleep satiated. He's a more competent wordcel than Elliot Rodger, as in he reasoned himself into his conclusions (and the shooting) with less vitriol and more verbiosity to fit neatly into the motte. We had a meta-level thread on the reporting variations depending on the perpetrator. Essentially, when the perpetrator is revealed to be an incel (ideological) or any type of right-wing-adjacent, we must treat their alleged behaviours as deterministic, self-evident and an ideologically settled case. But when you prune the actual numbers, even Ross Kemp is confounded.

I will say that there is one form of music in particular which is and always shall be absolutely unacceptable for any self-respecting insurrectionary of our cause to listen to. This is so-called ‘rap’ music, which is unfortunately the most popular music in the west at the time of this writing.

I don't know the context of this, not having read the manifesto myself, but since rap is considered a marker for celebrating black culture, could he be a fellow chud following all those KiA threads?

one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income

Definitely within the motte overton window, and I've seen the "redistribute the pussy" flavour of communism takes elsewhere too.

But capital reigns supreme. Capital is extremely conservative about predictability, any whiff of insurgency will be squashed immediately because capital cannot accumulate where chaos is ambient.

I don't know the context of this, not having read the manifesto myself, but since rap is considered a marker for celebrating black culture, could he be a fellow chud following all those KiA threads?

He didn't mention race beyond a reference to racial issues as a tool of the ruling class.

"Rap is literally the cultural quintessence of the hypergamy state, congealed into a musical form. It is vile, repulsive, foul, and hideous in every way. What does it preach? The worship of wealth and sensory pleasures. The flaunting of jewelry and clothes, insufferable bragging, and the pathetic ridicule of the weak, et cetera. How any of the dispossessed can listen to one second of that filth without instantly bristling with outrage and disgust, I have no idea. And yet, so many of them adore it, and find some kind of perverse enjoyment in listening to wealthy favoured males boast in rhyme about how many girls they have sodomized."

"But of course, all this is to say nothing of the stark fact that rap – in addition to being laughably worthless and disgusting – is also incredibly boring and dated now. It isn’t cutting edge, it isn’t fresh, and it isn’t revolutionary. This isn’t 1991 anymore, and rap has become a tired, corpulent, rotting old genre. It’s not even too much of an exaggeration to say that everyone and their mother now listens to it. One cannot step outside for more than five seconds without hearing someone blasting it from their car, and they literally play it at family diners now. All in all it simply isn’t the new and mysterious phenomenon that it once was, and it’s time for it to die forever."

"After we take power, the despicable ‘musicians’ and other people behind the propagation of rap should be some of the first ones that we liquidate, should any of them still be living by that point."

He felt very strongly about it to leave it in despite it being a personal tangent. I could understand why it irked him if rap was popular in his circles, though popular music in general is filled with similar messages if to lesser degrees.

Me? I'm not against rap. I'm not against rappers. But I am against those thugs.

What does it preach? The worship of wealth and **sensory pleasures The flaunting of jewelry and clothes, insufferable bragging, and **the pathetic ridicule of the weak.

"I hate sexual hedonism and violent alphas punching down on the weak. This is why I'm going to start an armed anti-feminist revolution to guarantee every man's right to fuck, and if the hoes don't like it, tough."

"40 years ago, our great state recognized the intrinsic liberty of at-will employment, and the need to free workers of mandatory union dues. We became a right to work state. Today, I propose we take the next step in the advancement of human liberty; I propose we become a right to fuck state."

I think what irks him about rap is "inferior* males boasting of all the women they got" while he, a Nice Guy, can't even catch a cold.

*Does not have to be about race! It's about "these guys are low-class, trashy, thugs and criminals who undeservedly are getting lots of money and lots of pussy".

Welp, the incel hysterics can go to sleep satiated.

The "please let the shooter be white cis" crowd must be breathing a sigh of relief.

one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income

You can force a woman to marry you under this regime. You can't make her like you, and I think even the dispossessed men will be frustrated when the woman saddled with them clearly doesn't want to even be in his vicinity and only by force tolerates him around her.

Now, it could sort of work if there were dating bureaus where people did get realistic assessment of "no, you are not going to get Chad/no, you are not going to get the hot anime waifu, this is your level in potential mates" and people have a choice as to whether they hit it off with the assigned date. But if you are relying on force and coercion, you won't get "she really loves and values me for myself" if that's what you're after.

You can get workable relationships that develop into mutual affection and respect over time out of that system, at worst "well I have to get married, might as well be this guy". But I think if you want to think of yourself as "dispossessed", you won't settle for that. You want the hot, desirable girl lusted after by others but she is head-over-heads in love with you and thinks the sun shines out of your backside, not the relationship that's "we're mutual helpmeets in an up-and-down world, let's make the best of things, yes my hair will go gray and I'll get thicker round the middle after having a couple of kids over the decades, you'll go bald and need glasses and forget where you put things, we'll soldier on together".

I don’t think this really defensible after you look at civilized society say 100 years ago. Most people say 90% sorted themselves, changed their minds about what they can expect from the partner that they can get, settled, and learned to love their partner, let’s say varying definitions of love, and they had long relationships, made children, built a family, etc.

To me it seems like what you’re describing are these idealized fantasies that people have before they try to find long term relationships and sort of reset their expectations and self-perception for what they can actually get.

Yeah I mean I know enough relatives who grew up in effectively these conditions (My dad's in his 80s now, has a large number of female siblings most of whom married before 20 to get out of the house/after getting pregnant) and I don't think the average quality of match is some massive departure from what the same women would be doing circa 2025. It's all pulling from the same fundamental social networks for the most part, and 'I'm going to select for somebody who is a somewhat stable wage-earner' as a motivation produces different results to 'I'm going to select for whoever gives me the strongest emotional pull'.

I also feel similar about arranged marriage as a whole. I'm not supporting knifepoint 12 year olds marrying 80 year olds, but I've got Indian friends and that 'strong introduction to somebody of about the same SES as you' pathway seems to work pretty fine on the aggregate? Maybe I have insufficient faith in the ability of people trying to self-source 'love matches'

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