site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3d ago (text post)   1725 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for July 2026

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.

Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

@naraburns:

@urquan:

@Amadan:

@Ioper:

Contributions for the week of June 29, 2026

@gattsuru:

@RussianAmericanMormon:

Contributions for the week of July 6, 2026

@birb_cromble:

@Rov_Scam:

@dr_analog:

@FCfromSSC:

Contributions for the week of July 13, 2026

@RenOS:

@JTarrou:

@faceh:

@johnfabian:

@FtttG:

@YoungAchamian:

@gattsuru:

Metamotte

@ZorbaTHut:

@StableOutshoot:

Contributions for the week of July 20, 2026

@urquan:

@georgioz:

@Shakes:

@MartianNight:

@FCfromSSC:

Contributions for the week of July 27, 2026

@FtttG:

@cjet79:

@Shakes:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@gattsuru:

@JeSuisCharlie:

@hanikrummihundursvin:

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nothing can be fixed if we aren't willing to openly say that women's behavior has changed, and these changes have led to the current predicaments.

I'm perfectly willing to say that women's behaviour has changed, as has men's behaviour, as a consequence of the technological shock of digital entertainment and smartphones. Many people are. Freya India wrote a whole book on it. The New Statesman investigated it. Academics are studying how female educational hypergamy manifests on Tinder. Activists are trying (and succeeding) in banning smartphones from schools and blocking teenage girls from Instagram and Tiktok because of the uniquely negative effect social media has one teenage girls.

The difference between our positions is that when I see a technology breaking the world, I worry about the technology. You seem to want to ignore the technology so that you can feel righteous fury (exclusively) against women.

Let's say you win the argument and everyone spontaneously agrees with you. Yes, say women, we are like ten year olds scrawling on priceless paintings, we deserve to be blamed exclusively for the breakdown in relationship formation, faceh is right about everything.

What then? What policy proposal derives from that? Do we change the law so that women can't have smartphones and have to go out and touch grass, but men can still spend 20+ hours per week playing video games and 10+ hours watching porn?

Of course, in the real world, if you want women's behaviour to change, they have to believe that you don't hate them. After all, if you hate them, how can they trust that you have their best interests at heart?

You seem to want to ignore the technology so that you can feel righteous fury (exclusively) against women.

Here, read this diatribe I wrote very specifically about the impacts of modern tech on the Zoomer mindset:

https://www.themotte.org/post/1002/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/213098?context=8#context

I point out the dating issue, but very specifically in the context of tech changes.

Two years ago. Do you get why I find your assessment of my opinions completely nonpersuasive? You're attempting psychoanalysis that is completely underinformed.

I've noticed the other topics you bring up. But doing even a moderate amount of research reveals one gender is behaving far, far worse than the other, across the board. Tech is not the fully explanatory factor.

There's clearly a variable at work that centers on the X chromosome.

What then? What policy proposal derives from that? Do we change the law so that women can't have smartphones and have to go out and touch grass, but men can still spend 20+ hours per week playing video games and 10+ hours watching porn?

We go back to 1993. I've said this repeatedly. Remove the policies that advantage women in obtaining admission to college and getting access to loans. Literally just put things back to a more even playing field from 30 years ago. No need to go back to the 50's.

Just repeal the Gender Equity in Education Act of 1993 on the grounds that it has COMPLETELY FAILED TO ACHIEVE GENDER EQUITY IN EDUCATION.

If this small, moderate, and fundamentally inoffensive policy change is beyond the pale for you, then I simply don't believe you're engaging with the issue in good faith. You will resist ANY change and thus you are nothing but an obstacle to be overcome.

SO: Would you accept this policy change?

After all, if you hate them, how can they trust that you have their best interests at heart?

Do women, in general, have a good track record for 'picking' people who have their best interests at heart?

Be honest. We went through the entire #metoo era where we learned that women keep getting 'fooled' by predatory men and then not mentioning it until years later.

Why should they trust themselves to know who has their best interests at heart?

Activists are trying (and succeeding) in banning smartphones from schools and blocking teenage girls from Instagram and Tiktok because of the uniquely negative effect social media has one teenage girls.

They are succeeding in destroying the anonymous internet where people can say mean things about women and politicians, and women politicians, without repercussions. Good thing every single comment section will soon require state ID, for, uh, age verification.

Of course, in the real world, if you want women's behaviour to change, they have to believe that you don't hate them.

How so? The current regime very obviously hates men, doesn't very much bother anymore to hide that fact, and is at the same time extremely successful in shaping male behaviour. Which brings us back to faceh's original point.

They are succeeding in destroying the anonymous internet where people can say mean things about women and politicians, and women politicians, without repercussions.

Don't forget revenge porn laws that allow them to nuke anybody who publicly shares photos that these women themselves transmitted.

My guess is this will ultimately allow any woman who had an OnlyFans career to completely remove all evidence of it from the internet and sic the government on anyone who tries to bring it up in the future.

The current regime very obviously hates men, doesn't very much bother anymore to hide that fact, and is at the same time extremely successful in shaping male behaviour.

I wouldn't even go that far, but then again, I think that indifference is arguably worse than hate, and the current regime is CLEARLY indifferent to male struggles.

If men's issues were cared about, then the CEOs of Match group and every other dating app would be having to testify in front of congress to explain why their systems are so bad at what they purport to do.

I wouldn't even go that far, but then again, I think that indifference is arguably worse than hate, and the current regime is CLEARLY indifferent to male struggles.

The current regime is indifferent to male struggles. It alternates power with a regime that actively hates them.

Fair enough.

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