site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1mo ago (text post)   3892 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:

2
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 directly in the context of tech changes.

Two years ago. Do you get why I find your assessment of my opinions 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.

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

In the context of what you are responding to, this seems rather like an arson-murder-and-jaywalking complaint. They are destroying internet anonymity, and I'm not allowed to repost their old OnlyFans pics anymore!

You know, I'm old enough to remember when there was an entire feminist movement devoted to letting women post their nipples on instagram. Like, there was a point in time where women were fighting to be able to (in theory) bare their breasts online and in public.

Also Slutwalks.

Just sayin'.

Its schizophrenic to say that nudity (at least, topless nudity) isn't a big deal and shouldn't come with social Disapprobation but then make a law to criminalize posting a person's nudes online.

We've got literal Porn Stars trying to get their own content removed from the internet. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic but this ultimately creates a method for one gender to remove evidence of their past behavior from easy access, and not the other.

I'm old enough to remember feminist-as-in-liberal, but today feminist-as-gynosupremacist is the rule of the day.

It's all very confusing, like how parties that call themselves "conservative" are far more reform-minded than parties that are not, how self-proclaimed "liberals" have nothing to do with classical liberalism, etc.

I'm actually somewhat sympathetic but this ultimately creates a method for one gender to remove evidence of their past behavior from easy access, and not the other

Yeah, that's why I'm not sympathetic. This is a highly-mechanized world, and man and woman should have equal political privilege. This just removes it from men without any benefit.

I'm old enough to remember feminist-as-in-liberal, but today feminist-as-gynosupremacist is the rule of the day.

It's all very confusing, like how parties that call themselves "conservative" are far more reform-minded than parties that are not, how self-proclaimed "liberals" have nothing to do with classical liberalism, etc.

Feminist-as-gynosupremacist is just feminist. It is not possible to be feminist without being gynosupremacist. Gynosupremacy is fundamental to and inseparable from feminism. The "feminist-as-in-liberal" you recall had as much to do with classical liberalism as your 'self-proclaimed "liberals"' do. The only difference between feminists of the past and feminists of today is that feminists today have more power and thus fewer of them feel the need to hide their bigotry behind the trappings of liberalism.

@faceh:

Its schizophrenic to say that nudity (at least, topless nudity) isn't a big deal and shouldn't come with social Disapprobation but then make a law to criminalize posting a person's nudes online.

The reason feminism is fundamentally gynosupremacy is that it asserts the supremacy of the female perspective. They seek to define women's perceptions of men's actions as the objective truth over men's intentions, and simultaneously women's intentions as the objective truth over men's perceptions of women's actions. In the case of nudity, the "schizophrenia" you see is a direct result of this: women perceive men as sexualizing them when they are topless and believe the men are in the wrong because they didn't intend for the men to perceive them that way. They believe they should have complete control over how men perceive them. If men are perceiving them in an undesired manner, that must be addressed.

If men are perceiving them in an undesired manner, that must be addressed.

This reads as fundamentally true to me.

Its also that whole thing where women get really upset if you to tell them dress modestly in public... but if a guy in public is leering at them and they don't find him attractive they will literally go on TikTok to call him out as a creep, even if he has made zero actual overtures to them. The womans' behavior must absolutely NEVER be policed regardless of its obvious effect on others, but males' behavior must be CONSTANTLY policed if it makes the women uncomfortable. Which, surprise, is a determination only women can make, so its resistant to formalized rulemaking.

"Clothing is not consent" is absolutely true... but Dave Chappelle's observation is also true. If your dress and behavior sends a particular signal, its not really fair to get mad at guys who respond to what the signal usually means.

If your dress and behavior sends a particular signal, its not really fair to get mad at guys who respond to what the signal usually means.

Which also applies to women when dealing with men in dresses and fake tits (and the signal that usually means).

"Clothing is not consent" is absolutely true

"Consent" (when it means as it is meant here, not the definition you'd expect from a plain dictionary reading) is the root of the problem, and the specific tool that is used to legitimize the excess here.

The "feminist-as-in-liberal" you recall had as much to do with classical liberalism

While I admit it's in the same vein of "show me one righteous man and I won't destroy the city" I do assert that some of them indeed exist.
(They also tend to be on the tomboy-ish end of things; I suspect that has something to do with it. The younger examples tend not to call themselves feminists, though.)

Perhaps this is more why I'm worried about destroying the entire edifice (and going back to androsupremacy as so many reactionaries do); limiting the worthy caught in the crossfire is important. I don't think that would happen even if we put them in charge, since if they did manage it they'd basically be the equivalent of a modern "racist" that doesn't even know what racism was outside of overusing the word "nigger" (and most of what their heuristics of racism are now simply happen to be objectively correct things; limiting immigration is simply correct), but it is frustrating that specific framing dominates.

Funny how it's never the attractive ones that are into the exhibitionism-style nudity, isn't it.

Funny how it's never the attractive ones that are into the exhibitionism-style nudity, isn't it.

Well, not so much funny as expected: the goal is ensuring that women can freely exploit their sexual attractiveness to extract benefits from men without having to fear attracting undesired attention from doing so. The "attractive ones" don't need to resort to exhibition-style nudity to exploit their sexual attractiveness, so they have less incentive to engage it.

And I think more directly, there are many valid reasons why one should be able to find out if one's girlfriend was previously an online prostitute, too.

But that's not a right enshrined in law, and if the law DOES enshrine the right to take down all sexually explicit materials that a person previously created, its clear where the incentives will flow.

Your link is broken because you forgot to include "https://" at the start of it.

TY.

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.

Throughout all of human history the world has been indifferent to male struggles. Nothing has changed here. It’s just how this has become institutionalized into politics and law.

Sperm is cheap.

Manual labor and technical knowhow, however, are not.

Hence why slavery was a vital institution in almost every civilization for almost all of history.

We did away with that in the not all-that-distant past.

What we're seeing is looking sort of kind of like all men below a certain attractiveness threshold becoming de-facto slaves in that they are expected to provide their labor, and pay taxes into the system, but receive a decreasing amount of the benefits and are given almost no say in the political process.

To the extent you believe in the social contract, it appears increasingly one-sided.

Historically, what happens when there's too much cheap sperm around with nothing to do?

Throughout all of human history the world has been indifferent to male struggles.

And outside of the last hundred years, that came with other privileges.

Now that equality is here, this must change, or we can't have equality any more (currently, the way this is happening is because women inevitably abuse the moral hazard this creates to replace the culture of equality with one that has more correct views about them, but it can happen in other ways as well; gender equality perception currently trends down among men born under this system, as is correct).

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