site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11321 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thus, if we are concerned about falling fertility rates, it would behoove us to figure out how to make women's education not reduce women's fertility.

What might help is if the more extreme of you guys could at least sound like you don't hate women.

I'm an outlier here, but were I a normal woman of around 25-30 considering marriage and kids, I wouldn't touch one of you with a ten foot barge pole, given the comments on here reeking of "we hate women". I'm going too far?

What do you call the laundry list of "women shouldn't get educated, women shouldn't be allowed vote, women shouldn't have a career (but at the same time women should not live off men), women shouldn't get a choice about who they marry, women shouldn't get a choice about having children, women should not be permitted to divorce (but if the man wants to divorce for a younger, more fertile woman to have more kids then that's fine)" and the other string of "what's wrong with the world? women!"

None of which sounds like "If we marry, I would respect and cherish you and work on a happy home and family" but rather "Your only function is to be my fuck-toy who gets knocked up on my schedule, and otherwise do everything to keep me happy, but don't bother me with your emotions or anything to do with raising the six kids I insist you have, as The Man and Head of the House I get to decide on everything including on whether you have any money of your own or not, and if I want to leave you penniless this is how it should be".

if the man wants to divorce for a younger, more fertile woman to have more kids then that's fine

I'm always down for pushback against our resident misogynists not wanting to uphold the male end of the historic social contract. But I haven't actually heard one of them say that.

I don't think there is any single person here that believes all those things. You're conflating the traditionalists with the black pillers so a lot of those conflict, and both stances combined are probably a minority opinion on here.

What might help is if the more extreme of you guys could at least sound like you don't hate women.

What is a woman? There are plenty of likable women out there, but there are also tons of not-so-likable women. Creating new laws and regulation that favor women has led us to cratering birthrates, maybe we should try something else for once.

What do you call the laundry list of "women shouldn't get educated, women shouldn't be allowed vote, women shouldn't have a career (but at the same time women should not live off men), women shouldn't get a choice about who they marry, women shouldn't get a choice about having children, women should not be permitted to divorce (but if the man wants to divorce for a younger, more fertile woman to have more kids then that's fine)" and the other string of "what's wrong with the world? women!"

Where is that laundry list? Is that an unwarranted demand for rigor on my part here, or is such hyperbolic woman-hate really so prevalent on this website and the woman-skeptic web in general?

I am not going to trawl through past comment threads for the exact quotes because that's too damn disheartening, but yeah - previous discussions of "why isn't anyone having babies?" has devolved into "it's because women! the uppity bitches!" and solutions suggested include:

  • no access to higher education (because more education and lower fertility linked, many such studies)
  • no careers (okay maybe they can be nurses or kindergarten teachers or some soft easy no-job like secretary, but that's mostly so men can have a selection of females to choose a potential wife from, workplace romances should be okay, there is no such thing as sexual harassment (if your boss wants a blowjob in exchange for a pay rise then get on your knees, it's not like you have any talents or skills that deserve better pay unlike a man*) and once you're married no more job/career for you Mrs. Woman)
  • no choice in marriage (women being picky and hypergamous means the average Nice Guy can't even get a swipe on a dating app, so go back to the days of families arranging marriages, that way women would be mated with their equals in the Sexual Marketplace Value, instead of holding out for Chad)
  • no contraception/abortion (except of course for eugenic reasons)
  • early childbearing (higher fertility, more children over the span of fertile years)
  • divorce changed back (too liberal and skewed in favour of women, who can divorce-rape poor innocent men and leave them standing begging on the side of the road in rags while the leech ex-wife jets around having luxury lifestyle, and no "I was a full-time home maker for fifteen to twenty years" is not work or contributing to the marriage or supporting the husband in any way so they deserve nothing after divorce)
  • giving women the vote was a mistake (they vote for policies that favour them and so society is now weakened, emasculated, and all the rest of the ills)
  • feminism is to blame (it taught women to hate men, instead of knowing their place being ready to be wives and mothers as soon as they hit twenty at the oldest)
  • the Sexual Revolution was all women's fault, women are promiscuous, the cock carousel, you know the drill
  • women should Know Their Place, their only advantages are when they're young and hot and so men want to fuck them (it's evolution in action!) and they should remember that one day they will Hit The Wall, all their ova will dry up, they will be old raddled ugly hags, no man will want them, and they won't even have a husband and children to support them now they're dried-up useless crones of thirty-five

And then there are the guys who really don't like women and want to put them in their proper place.

*If you think I'm joking, no indeed past discussions have also gone "women should use their natural advantages to get ahead in the workplace so if Boss offers promotion in exchange for sleeping with him, go for it". No guy has said he'd let his boss fuck him for a promotion, but then again they are all Straight Manly Men of Talent who got ahead on pure merit, unlike women who only have their fleeting sexual attractiveness to offer, right?

Well I think we are all on a spectrum on all of these different assertions. Some of these are a little contradictory, depending on whether this is coming from a more traditional or non-traditional perspective.
I imagine that even the hardest of communists see an issue with running out of comrades if nobody in the world has any kids, even these evil conservatives whose kids we will all convert.

I hope we can both agree on some basic facts such as :

  • at least some women should have children
  • early childbearing (higher fertility, more children over the span of fertile years) is a true statement, whether we want to make it normative or not, if a society wants to increase fertility, that is probably something to consider
  • most people can't be both girlbosses and the primary caregiver of a child age 0-3

There are some other assertions that are more debatable, like

giving women the vote was a mistake (they vote for policies that favour them and so society is now weakened, emasculated, and all the rest of the ills)

feminism is to blame (it taught women to hate men, instead of knowing their place being ready to be wives and mothers as soon as they hit twenty at the oldest)

That one is more of a correlation/causation problem, maybe the inevitable fertility cliff was to happen no matter what with modernity, but [single] women do vote for policies that seem to decrease fertility.

there is no such thing as sexual harassment (if your boss wants a blowjob in exchange for a pay rise then get on your knees, it's not like you have any talents or skills that deserve better pay unlike a man*)

I disagree with that one, but there is obviously a huge problem in how feminists vow to handle these nuanced matters. #BelieveAllWomen #NotCarolynBryantTho

No guy has said he'd let his boss fuck him for a promotion

Rare, but it happens. Lee Boo Jin / Im Woo Jae

Why are you so upset about this anyway?

Would it be okay if women were 100% legally allowed to pursue a career, go to college, etc -what we have now or better- but society was relentlessly shaming women who refuse to get married and have 2+ kids?

Or would you also be upset about that?

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