site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24304 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.

I don't see why women would want the status quo to change though. They benefit in the short term, and the long term damage is hard to anticipate. Especially so when anyone trying to educate about the downsides is shouted down as "attempting to control women's bodies". In a democracy, we do need the consent of both genders for a norm change to work.

It is also not entirely clear to me that there is a better system to swap to. The old one led to what we have now after all, and it seems fairly undeniable that a lot of people used to end up in bad marriages with people who didn't care much about them regardless.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Females attending college en masse seems like the nexus of many issues.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

That's where they incur significant amounts of debt.

That's where they rack up a body count.

That's where they acquire inflated standards in mate choice.

It burns 4+ years of fertility.

In short, they become far less appealing as partners in most cases, on the back end.

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

I could write a manifesto on that topic, but I wouldn't want to shoot anybody to get it attention.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

Probably not (see The Case Against Education). They were already lefties to begin with. Alexa, play the George Orwell quote.

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

So you're saying that they were already indoctrinated in high school?

My thesis is that they're just way more susceptible to virtually any ideological brainwashing, just as the Orwell quote implies.

And college is completely captured by lefties at every level, so, that's where the brainwashing pushes them.

College is in my view a large part of the problem. Social Media and Tiktok is another. Arguably that's the mechanism through which they police each others' behavior once they're out of college.

College is in my view a large part of the problem.

It's a nice thesis. It has the disadvantage of conflicting with empirical evidence, though.

Not the evidence I've seen.

Specifically, college educated womens' voting patterns (in the U.S.) vs. those of non-college educated women.

I would agree that their natural inclinations are towards the left, if anything.

Specifically, college educated womens' voting patterns (in the U.S.) vs. those of non-college educated women.

Surely you are smart enough to realize that these groups are not the same but for the college degree, or, to put it simply, that correlation does not imply causation?

I encourage you to see what Caplan writes on this in The Case Against Education. You can even feed the EPUB into your favorite LLM if you don't want to read it.

That's where they rack up a body count.

Then the answer is simple: men should now assume the responsibility that was traditionally put upon women, to curb the sensual appetites of the male (or rather, in this case, female). You should have self-respect and discipline, and gently but firmly decline to have anything to do with hanky-panky outside marriage!

After all, women can't "rack up a body count" without guys willing to be those bodies, now can they?

CORRECT.

My modest proposal there is death penalty for such men.

But people find that goes too far, so I would suggest we simply castrate them, as a compromise.

I've already munched on that bullet.

I think we're in broad agreement here. Complaints about racking up body counts tend to be "but she wouldn't sleep with me, the bitch!" more than "it is shocking that the gentle and modest damsel is corrupted into these worldly lusts, alas".

Its kind of both.

Its very frustrating to grow into a world where sex is treated simultaneously as some uninteresting normal thing that everyone has and its no big deal, and yet also this critically important feature of social life around which one's personal status in the hierarchy revolves.

You go to college, and women can be very open about sleeping around, with no shame. But if you propose a tryst to one, out of the blue, with the implication that this woman is easy to get into bed, this is considered a massive, 'creepy' faux pas.

So its less "she wouldn't sleep with me" and more "why am I punished for seeking out sexual access when everyone else treats sexual access as a casual, unremarkable feature of college life?"

But there is absolutely the portion of this ecosystem, the semi-predatory male who specializes in getting naive women to open their legs that doesn't get remarked upon.

We've tried to have it both ways and it doesn't work. We're still stuck between "hey, sex no biggie, it's a normal appetite like food" and "sex is this amazing, special thing and if you miss out on it you are doomed".

If someone was online complaining that they couldn't get some amazing specialised dish from a particular country because they lived in the wrong place, we'd probably not be very sympathetic that they were missing out on a vital life experience. There wouldn't be foodcels. We wouldn't be at the same time telling everyone that of course they shouldn't expect to eat at The French Laundry if they're living in Nowheresville, Noplace and that it's a natural human right that they should be able to access four star Michelin cuisine and if they're not getting it, they're worthless losers who should just sew their mouths shut/it's all the fault of chefs who should be forced to come and open up fine dining establishments in Nowheresville, who do those guys think they are, always chasing after the Chad food critics and friendzoning the Nice Guys? (That Ramsay, such a slut, do you know how many restaurants he worked at and under how many head chefs? Yeah, under is right!)

I think also there is the resentment of being marked "easy" when there really is no equivalent for guys. You may think a guy who sleeps around and has a string of girls on the go is Chad/a cad/enviable because he's livin' the life/a miserable rake with no morals, but there isn't "oh that guy is easy to get into bed" type of judgement. We're still stuck on that 'between two stools' double standard; you want your girlfriend to be sexually experienced enough to be good in bed (for you), but at the same time getting that experience is considered a yardstick as to her ultimate value (not very much).

All guys are already assumed to be easy to get into bed. There's no status lost because there was no status there in the first place

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

That's simply not going to fly, for as long as people believe in blank statism. Unfortunately, the belief in blank statism has been self-reinforcing, due to policies under its belief leading to less competent people getting elevated to positions of status and power, leading to less rigor and more nonsense being taught as true, leading to more people believing in blank statism. Unfortunately, the beatings will continue until morale improves, or until enough of society is destroyed enough such that no one has the energy to carry out any more beatings than necessary to fend off starvation for one more day. I have no idea how to escape this cycle outside of maybe pinning my hopes on AI actually enabling fully automated luxury Communism, but that's a long shot.

This is why I've said that if I were to become emperor of Earth, one of my first decrees would be to outlaw all demographic-based statistical analysis, under penalty of summary execution, with all civilians being deputized to carry out this punishment. It probably wouldn't be enough to fix it either, but it seems like less of a long shot than AI saving us.

blank statism

Probably a typo that you made a few times, but also an accurate description of current government efforts to address various demographic disparities.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Should be return to to 1978 as in 1979 women reach gender parity in attending college. I'm not sure people get how long we've had an egalitarian society, but we are coming up on 50 years. So unless your theory can account for the 14 years prior to 1993 as being ok, you should probably adjust it.

My suspicion is that the rise of 'useless' genders studies degrees and major overproduction of women with degrees took off in the 90's, hence why we didn't really get a swarm of SJWs until the 2010s.

Colleges were hives of leftist thought long before then, but that was counterbalanced by there being ample alternative routes for one's career before that point.

Also, look at the stats on women getting Masters and Doctorate degrees to see where the problem became SERIOUS.

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