site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3d ago (text post)   1764 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.

Disappointed that Faceh's comment got so many nominations and upvotes, given that his comment was a trivially dispprovable claim (discussions of birth rates focus mostly on men) and his 'evidence' was three articles he didn't like combined with a nonsequitous call to action (find me a pronatal policy that tries to limit women's behaviour, when there are literally no pronatal policies that limit men's behaviour). For an apparently 'quality contribution', there's no actual contribution there, no argument beyond the impulse to blame women.

sigh.

My whole, larger point is that there is literally never any moment, ever, where women receive any blame, either individually or collectively. There is never any attempt to make a policy adjustment that would disadvantage women even slightly. If discussion of a given policy would upset women, it does not get discussed. If women deem a particular factual argument as 'creepy' and forbidden, you are de facto not allowed to make the argument within earshot of a woman.

The mainstream is keen to discuss MALE shortcomings, and discuss how men's behavior impacts women's happiness and thus all the things that males could be doing differently. But as I've pointed out before, good luck finding a single article that asks "what are the concerns that males have, are they valid, and what can we do to alleviate them?" Its rare to even find an article on the topic written by a male author.

That comment was far from my best work, but I've got a large amount of contributions on this topic (to my chagrin) by now and I have yet to hear a single gosh-darn refutation of the point. It often ends with the obtuse implication or direct statment "you are probably unsuccessful with women and thus resentful, and now its clear you're misogynist. Therefore (somehow) we can ignore your arguments entirely."

Such attacks are boring. Unpersuasive. Fallacious. And if the goal is to shame, intimidate, or otherwise get me to back down, ineffective. The opposite of effective. My psychological makeup is such that when you make such attempts on me, I will literally plant my feet HARDER. It is immensely gratifying to me to stand up for an unpopular point that is nonetheless correct, and feel the frustration of those who are used to using social influence to shut down debate when they realize I'm not letting it go. I care very, very little about being popular.

The fact that this forum is one of the only ones on the public-facing internet where you can point out unpopular facts and level such arguments and not get dogpiled and/or downvoted into oblivion, and I choose to use said forum to point out the glaring asymmetry in favor of women, is probably why it reads as 'misogynist' to people who come from other forums where I would be simply banned or drowned out.

EDIT: Oh look, Just today Another article written by a woman writing about how bad dating is... and how this impacts women's feelings.

TO HER CREDIT, we get this passage:

Meanwhile, a lot of men are feeling painfully inadequate. It’s not that money is the only thing a man can offer; after all, fewer women need a breadwinner now. But researchers told me that the qualities women now value more than ever—sensitivity, openness, communication skills—are not typically ingrained in men from childhood. And although men strive to meet those modern expectations, the old standards haven’t disappeared. Men are supposed to pay for dinner but also treat women as equals; to initiate flirty banter but never be creepy or aggressive; to be sturdy and masculine but also empathetic and thoughtful. Arthur, a 46-year-old in New Jersey who responded to my survey, said that he’s dated women who think he’s too nice. One explained that she broke up with him because he has “dad energy.” (“I’m not 100 percent sure what that means,” Arthur told me, “but I’m guessing it’s not very sexy.”) Another said she liked how sweet and supportive he was, yet also wanted him to be more decisive—to be “the man” in the relationship, as Arthur saw it. He wasn’t sure how to exhibit both traits at once.

My own experience is almost the inverse. I feel overqualified for the husband position at this point, and I'm continually seeing women who might, in theory, make good wives go down self-defeating, sometimes self-destructive paths such that I have a hard time seeing them as marriage material.

My whole, larger point is that there is literally never any moment, ever, where women receive any blame, either individually or collectively

Two wrongs don't make a right. Blaming the male half of humanity collectively for an obvious technological shock is just as stupid as blaming the female half. I agree with you that all those 'nobody is coupling up any more because men are terrible' articles are stupid and wrong, but the correct response is to diagnose what the actual problem is, not to reflexively say 'no, it's the women!' as good as that may feel.

just as stupid as blaming the female half.

I'm not blaming them any more than I blame a 10-year-old kid for scribbling over a priceless work of art with permanent marker. Quite frankly they probably aren't aware of the damage the vandalism is causing, and why the work of art was 'valuable' and irreplaceable. But they are indeed creating the issue, and one can still see their behavior as problematic without 'blaming' them.

So in this case, I'm pointing out the source and/or cause of the observed issue.

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 not the guy chalking this up to a nefarious Jewish plot or even 'feminism' as some abstract force of history. I'm also prepared to acknowledge the role of technology in creating the behavioral changes.

But I will keep pointing out the information that everyone else studiously ignores. You seem to want to continue ignoring it, I don't know why precisely.

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?

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