site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12841 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This week I encountered an artifact at the intersection of my interests. I watched a good movie with Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling, The Nice Guys. The damsel in distress is played by Margaret Qualley, and additional reading about her pointed me towards this. Watch it, it's short.

It's a ten-year-old ad for a (terrible) fragrance, in which Margaret, wearing an evening dress, dances to a banging dancehall tune. It's very obviously inspired by the award-winning music video for Weapon of Choice by Fatboy Slim (and its director and the guy who wrote the music for the Kenzo ad are brothers), but that's not the point. The point is a goofy Christopher Walken doesn't have the same effect on me as a goofy Margaret Qualley. And she certainly does. She was "eh" in the movie, she is "hnng" in the ad.

Why does making faces and doing silly walks make a conventionally attractive woman even more attractive? The effect goes beyond the well-established TikTok practice of dancing and lip-synching. Why don't women use this superweapon? I can only think of (sorry!) Aella that does.

Some hypotheses:

  1. An active face in your twenties gives you more wrinkles in your forties. I don't think it works like that, but maybe women believe it does.
  2. It's another disarmament thing. You have women that can pull it off with ease (because they are attractive and outgoing), and you have the rest, who either have to struggle or can't do silly mode at all. A culture of limited expressivity has evolved to avoid an arms race.
  3. It's a limited masculinization budget thing. Similar to #2, but limited to a single person. Qualley does her routine in heels and an evening dress, the lines of her body unmistakably feminine even when she's walking with a pronounced hunch. Dress her in baggy sweats and sneakers, and the same routine won't have the desired effect. Why invest in a weapon that limits your other options?

FWIW (1) In general I find Margaret Qualley to be very attractive; and (2) to me, that dance routine was not attractive at all. If she were my girlfriend, I would try to avoid thinking about that dance number.

In any event, my wild-ass guess is that if a woman is willing to violate certain social norms, some men perceive it as a signal that she might be down for a quickie.

Why don't women use this superweapon?

Women have an even stronger super-weapon to generate attraction, which is to wear clothing which is significantly more revealing than the average women around them. A shorter skirt; a more low-cut top; a skimpier bikini; and so on. So why aren't there lots of women walking around naked? (Actually sometimes it seems we are headed in that direction). There are a few answers to that, but a big one is, again, social norms. Most women don't want to be perceived as trashy. Besides, as another poster pointed out, most women want better suitors, not more suitors.

In the same way, there's a social norm against doing the sort of goofy dance she is doing in that video. In fact that's kind of the point of the video -- she is doing something unconventional.

FWIW (1) In general I find Margaret Qualley to be very attractive; and (2) to me, that dance routine was not attractive at all.

Same. I first saw her in Nice Guys around when it came out and thought she was gorgeous in that so I have watched a lot of what she has been in, and I have to say she is one of those Nepo Babies with real talent. That dance is one of the least attractive things I have seen her in. She was prettier in Maid where she was dressed all the way down as a poor single mother.

Hot take: Talented nepo babies in Hollywood are vindication of HBD.

Far be it from me to put HBD evidence in the trash, but I take it more as evidence that acting is trivially easy and the only people who can’t do it are crack babies (a set with significant overlap on nepo babies, which is the real reason nepo babies usually can’t - they are unusually disadvantaged on account of their parent’s drug use)

I used to think acting skill was about acting convincingly, but I think it's actually more like being someone people want to watch. I don't think it's trivially easy, or at least it's comparable to something like picking up women at a bar. It's easy if you've got it, really hard if you actually need to get good at it.

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