site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   17688 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The reason it comes across as weirdly controlling is that women in happy relationships don't suddenly dye their hair and get a new tattoo that they know their husband will hate. That's already a sign that the relationship is on the rocks, without any control rhetoric. This is true of most things (getting fat less so, especially after some children). If you say "wow, those huge pants that are trending sure are ugly!" And she goes out and buys the ugly pants you hate, that is already a sign that she doesn't respect you. That's less the case with things like getting fat and cutting her hair after bearing your children, because small children really do like pulling hair with surprising intensity, and all things cooking and exercise related can become harder.

The reason it comes across as weirdly controlling is that women in happy relationships don't suddenly dye their hair and get a new tattoo that they know their husband will hate.

Except when they decide the relationship ISN'T happy and, rather than actually discuss the matter with their spouse, they opt to listen to their local divorced friends or tiktok or a feminist podcast crew and just go full "my body my choice" and dares the husband to object.

Which, legally speaking, there's not much he can do but bear it, or divorce.

The risk exists, and men are not ignorant of this.

I will flip your point to its obvious corollary.

If the woman expects that the relationship will remain happy and trusts her husband's decisionmaking, then THE THOUGHT OF CHANGING HER APPEARANCE WITHOUT ASKING HIM SHOULDN'T CROSS HER MIND.

If the marriage is happy then why should she ever feel the need to challenge his authority on this point! It shouldn't even be an issue to start with! It can just be two parties who have mutually agreed that they are made better by the others' presence, and thus neither feels the need to disrupt things for the other party without discussing it. The woman going behind his back to change herself is a failure mode.

The only reason the man needs to exercise control in that fashion is that the woman has, for SOME reason, decided to test it! You say the control would be unnecessary in a happy marriage. I say that the acting out and drastic changes is also unnecessary in a happy marriage.

Basically, I find your logical construction of the situation incomplete.

See, this is what I mean by reciprocal. I CONSTANTLY hear that men who have expectations, standards, and want to exercise control over their local environment (i.e they one they acquired through their efforts/money and are charged with maintaining) as abusive or narcissistic.

And in some cases this may be true. But as per usual you never hear critiques of women who randomly decide to flout expectations and reject standards and act out of control when they had no actual reason to do so. If the woman finds herself in a good situation, it behooves HER to not act out in ways that demolish the status quo.

But this implies that she has to accept correction from SOMEWHERE.

So I just put the question to you: If a woman starts to act out and threatens to upend an otherwise happy, successful marriage... WHO aside from her husband, should be tasked with corralling her behavior?

Or is the thesis that nobody is authorized to correct such behavior?

I'm doubting the premise that 1) a woman in a happy relationship would disfigure herself in ways she knew would piss off her husband, or 2) if she did, whether him going on about Authority and Correctness and the he's got to corral her behavior, would do anything except make the situation worse.

Do you know many conservative women? The main danger is that they'll start wearing frumpy t-shirt dresses and let all their makeup expire, such that it become very difficult for them to dress up nicely, which is what I thought your initial comment was pointing to. If they're going full midlife crisis, I don't know what the solution is in that case, probably a change of social group. Perhaps an internet free religious retreat?

Mostly its a sign the husband forgot to block social media sites on the router, as is his patriarchal responsibility.

All that shit is a social contagion and not a sign of anything except gas lighting.

Lol. Controlling the internet settings is a more reasonable and trad position than controlling your wife's fashion choices, anyway.

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