site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   21745 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 3, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Have you ever paid for a prostitute?

No.

If a woman is just interested in the status of a man, why isn't she just a prostitute at that point? Besides that, how do you feel, as a man, knowing that if your own social status falls, that she will think less of you, or leave you? It's degrading to both sexes.

As opposed to just like, being larger than her? I guess I think my status and personality are more intrinsic to me than money. Status isn't a euphemism for wealth, it's a high regard others hold you in. The boss in a petty crime group has a certain type of status granted by being a leader of men, the boring white collar professional is entitled to a kind of status as well. The status is highly subjective of course but it's not nearly so transactional as prostitution. A women who finds herself bound to a man with status in her milieu doesn't think of the situation like she's trading herself for his status transactionally, she feels warm and fuzzy and validated that she is with him. And her assessment of the status is relatively robust. If the white collar guy temporarily loses his job or the gang boss loses his turf she'll likely default to seeing it as a setback rather than immediately abandon him.

Anyways we're muddling the normative and the descriptive. My point is that in fact women do not behave in the way you describe. The physical stature of a man just isn't some inescapable factor.

Like I said, class is evil and cheapens the underlying fundamental nature of sex.

Class is evil but dividing all men into half chads and half subhumans unfit for reproduction on the basis of race isn't?

Class is evil but dividing all men into half chads and half subhumans unfit for reproduction on the basis of race isn't?

Of course the latter is evil as well, that's the entire point of my original post! I want men to be given an equal and fair chance rather than ever be subject to the humiliation of being cast as half subhumans unfit for reproduction on the basis of their race. I feel you have misunderstood my broader point which is actually very much arguing for more equal opportunity of reproduction and I think that race conflates and belabors the situation in an unproductive way that ought to be better acknowledged if it is to be overcome.

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