site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   6626 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 10, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I suggest /r/Romance_For_Men

I took a look at the top submissions, and I am now thoroughly horrified. What they keep asking for is literally Morning Glory Milking Farm, but in reverse. "Vince is a typical, down-on-his-luck millennial: mid-twenties, over-educated and drowning in debt, on the verge of moving into his parents' basement." And then he gets a job at Cambric Creek Morning Glory Milking Farm, where a muscle mommy minotauress gives him gently dominating handjobs.

Is this really what the romantic ideal for modern men looks like? Not Rose Sayer or Willie Scott or Princess Leia or Evelyn Carnahan or, um, Princess Fiona?

Weeds are always the first plants to colonize barren ground, and in their wake less hardy plants flourish. Thus as it is with gooners and media.

But no seriously, very few authors are going to invest years of work to stake their mangum opus in an unproven genre-- and even fewer agents, editors, and publishes will support them. The modern flood of romantasy wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the endless twilight and harry potter smut fics. Monsterfucking is a necessary step on the tech tree.

I could understand gooners looking for harems, or, like the sibling comment said, Gor. But monster mommies?

An obsessive, devoted woman who's too neurodivergent to love another man isn't all that crazy of a love interest. Plus, "tall, hairy, curvy" are neither individually nor jointly particularly crazy as fetishes. Obviously there's an element of exaggeration in there too-- a book has to tell you "EIGHT FOOT WOMAN WITH BICEPS LIKE BOULDERS" to inspire a feeling that even approaches what you would experience in real life if a girl a little taller than you gave you a bear hug.

The dignity of Man is often exaggerated.

Well it is reddit, so of course it's going to be safe horny since everything else is highly illegal.

If you want Gor you're going to have to pay the actually-banned-book tax and find publishing houses run by schizo foreigners and ephemeral livejournal archives.

No wonder people just stick to Japanese media, where virile urges are just a normal thing.

Who said anything about Gor? I'm talking about a competent, but rough around the edges protagonist winning the heart of a refined damsel that initially finds him uncouth and vulgar, while he finds her cold and snooty. Not teaching her the freedom of submission.

It's rounded down to the same thing by the current western zeitgeist.

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