site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  5d ago (text post)   2546 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.

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.

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.

More comments

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