site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   19866 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.

Even to the point where a another person's sexual preferences should go to the gender, not the sex, of a potential romantic partner.

I'm pretty sure you're not entitled to anyone else's sexual desire. I remember being told this by Social Justice during the NiceguyTM era of dating discourse.

This is also the crux of why I find gender ideology so dementedly self-centered; your gender is ultimately only truly relevant when it comes to who you want to fuck and who wants to fuck you, which is a basic drive of being human. If you're ugly enough that a very narrow band of people will fuck you, that sucks. If you groom yourself weird, act/dress weird, and mutilate your body into something weird that an even narrower band of people want to fuck, that's a self-own. You don't get to shame and berate people for their sexual preferences because you made yourself less attractive to 99% of human beings, who's sexual preferences are tuned towards finding a fertile mate that they can produce offspring with.

This is also the crux of why I find gender ideology so dementedly self-centered

Well yeah, every -supremacy movement is kind of by definition self-centered (it's in the name), and gynosupremacy is not any different.

You don't get to shame and berate people for their sexual preferences because you made yourself less attractive to 99% of human beings, who's sexual preferences are tuned towards finding a fertile mate that they can produce offspring with.

In the 99.9% case, it's a woman being angry at men for this. Transgender ideology is simply a projection of that (i.e. to solidify their right to do it) and the equalization of "women can be men too".

that's a self-own

Why would it be? You don't even have to pair off, the State will take care of you in your old age.

I'm pretty sure you're not entitled to anyone else's sexual desire. I remember being told this by Social Justice during the NiceguyTM era of dating discourse.

This was already mentioned, but it’s the usual who/whom.

If a man isn’t able to attract a woman he finds attractive, it’s because he’s the problem.

If a woman isn’t able to secure commitment from a man she finds attractive, it’s because men are the problem.

If a transwoman isn’t able to attract a man he finds attractive, it’s because cishet men are the problem.

Oppression olympics, it's all who/whom. Transgender lesbians are entitled to the sexual attraction of real lesbians(and being women, they don't cure this with Antina The Butch and her strap on, but rather with freakouts), because being trans they are more oppressed than lesbians.

One of the dumbest things I've encountered IRL was a petite, plain-at-worst FtM complaining that gay guys didn't want to fuck him.

So, you want to fuck people with dicks. And you have a vagina. But, instead of dating one of the numerously eager people who like vaginas and have dicks, the dick that fucks you HAS to like dicks, which despite your grooming and manner of dress, you do not have. And instead of compromising on your rather esoteric preference, you choose to waste everyone's time with this woe-is-me bit. Also, I suspect you only have this preference for dicks-that-like-dicks because, despite being heterosexual, you've been conditioned by external influences to think dicks-that-like-vaginas are bad. And no one is allowed to tell you that your desires and how you go about seeking to satisfy them are back-asswards.

This is someone who’s oblivious and/or masochistic enough to choose living life on a higher difficulty setting, so I suppose wittingly or unwittingly nuking their pool of eligible sexual/romantic partners is part of the experience.

Them complaining about it is pretty funny though. It’s like the Bike Fall meme/comic of a man jamming a stick through his wheel. Damn, if only there was a way one could have been attractive to a larger population of penis-havers…

I'm pretty sure you're not entitled to anyone else's sexual desire

I agree that this is potentially a valid criticism of gender ideology, but I'd be interested to know if adherents of gender ideology agree that it's transphobic for a straight man (or a lesbian woman) to categorically rule out dating an individual who would traditionally be thought of as a man but is of the female gender.

I do remember that a few years back, there was an online commentator who declared that he was "super-straight," a sexual orientation which meant that he was sexually attracted to women as the term is defined more traditionally. As I recall, trans activists did not find this acceptable or amusing.

I'd be interested to know if adherents of gender ideology agree that it's transphobic for a straight man (or a lesbian woman) to categorically rule out dating an individual who would traditionally be thought of as a man but is of the female gender.

I'm pretty sure they do think that. Or at least that's what I've seen ostensibly-straight gender-ideology-adherent women posting angrily about on social media.

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