site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   10942 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 28, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This won't behave how we'd naively expect.

Let's take two hypothetical countres:

Country A : 1.5 men per woman

Country B : 0.75 men per woman

Mathematically, we'd expect the women in country A to want to pair since they will have higher quality matches available.

In country B, we'd expect women to resist pairing since high-quality men are scarcer.

Yet, the opposite behavior appears to be true. Given an abundance of thirsty dudes, women will often reject even high quality mates. See: San Francisco.

The supremacy of probability & statistics driven evolutionary psychology over specious econoreasoning. Gale shapley does not apply because women can be single and preferences are not stable in men. Women wield singleness to wait on the top men in the area for their temporary turn. They will do this in country B and A and this behavior means at any given time more men per capita in B are getting laid than in A.

high quality mates. See: San Francisco.

Sorry to burst your bubble but if wealth + intelligence is your only metric for high-quality mates you have a weird skew. As the saying goes: "The odds are good but the GOODS ARE ODD". Autistic nerdy men who happen to make 7 figures do not high quality mates alone make.

It's almost a tautology at this point, but the Bay has been known for this sort of male population for a long time. So if men in the Bay are still struggling then it would behoove you to update your model on what is actually considered high quality (different than high status) instead of what autistic nerds would like to be considered high quality

It's a nice story, and I agree with your assessment on status, but it doesn't hold water.

  1. SF has a bad ratio. This is the core of the problem.

  2. The same man who strikes out in SF/Seattle goes to NYC and drowns in female affection. It's a well-known phenomenon. There is no magic soil in NYC that makes men less autistic.

We don't have to make broad sociological observations. It's 90% just the ratio.

The same man who strikes out in SF/Seattle goes to NYC and drowns in female affection. It's a well-known phenomenon. There is no magic soil in NYC that makes men less autistic.

Meh. They'd probably have a better shot in NYC than the West Coast but I'm skeptical that moderately cashed up Indian Product Manager with low-mid 7 figures in RSUs at a height of 5'4 is suddenly the alphadog of NYC

Meh. Don't ever start a comment with Meh. Meh yourself.

Yes, obviously your example is not going to bag a Swedish model. But he'd easily bag a 5'2 Indian Project Manager in NYC. In SF, she's already been bagged by a 5'8" white dude.

One would wonder why no women from NYC go to SF/Seattle. Why do we never reach equilibrium between two unequal states unless transfers are one sided or the transfers that are happening aren't the problem population.

It's a well-known phenomenon.

Theoretically, but among my remaining friends in SF/Seattle, including some who took 6 month hiatuses to NYC for this reason, I have not seen drowning. It's hard to prove or disprove this as phenomenon with relying on anecdotal data because while its theoretically possible its too multivariate to quantically determine it.

It's a good question. My guess is that the women who move to SF for love tend to be mercenary and guys get the ick.

But dating is puzzling. For all the complaining, most people are barely trying. Why don't fat women use a GLP-1? Why do men take pictures with fish?

It's a good question. My guess is that the women who move to SF for love tend to be mercenary and guys get the ick.

I think it's more down to those women generally joining the hunt for the top tier of eligible bachelors and increasing the logjam instead of really meaningfully increasing the distribution of potential partners down the stack.

maybe, but that feels like a poor predictive answer, it relies on a very "simple" understanding that seems to be more of a "disparate impact" on outcomes sort of view.

Because women are low-agency.

I would also wonder how many of the men in san fran are not looking for, uh, female companionship vs NYC, given the reputation of san francisco...

Yes I have noticed this. I know 2 types of conservative-ish women. Those who think that since they are the woman, the man should come to them, and the type that knows what they want, and puts themselves in positions where the more compatible men are.

However I've noticed this equally applies to a sub-section of picky men, who refuse to make some level of actual effort that might require some sacrifice to get themselves into a place where their preferred partners exist. So "women are low-agency" has become more just-world fallacy to me.

In SF, age 25-39, it's 52.8% male. In NYC, it's 48.8%.

While that doesn't SOUND like a huge difference, let's say 80% of each group are open to a heterosexual relationship (with the remaining 20% being gay/not looking). Then let's pair off 70% of the remaining women with men.

In SF, there are 1.4 single men for every women. In NYC, its 0.84. The difference is stark.

But in the modern world, men will always be at a disadvantage. 51.2% of people are born male absent any sex selection. It's supposed to get down to 50% by the time men breed, but we don't kill each other with sticks as much anymore.

Are those the overall sex ratio numbers, not age specific ones? The ones for NYC get skewed heavily by the older cohort of women if you use overall numbers, and it doesn't do the average 25yo male much good that there are loads of single 50+ women in NYC (jokes about cougars aside). You said 25-39, but those sound more like the overall ones I remember.

edit: this one I was thinking of is old data. I wish I could see an update with moveable sliders like this one has. Set to 20-39 and the oversupply of women seems to vanish.

My data is for all people age 25-39. The discrepancy between the raw data and your "singles" numbers can be explained pretty easily.

  1. Older men like to date women in the 25-39 bracket but not vice versa

  2. Women in "situationships" tend to report being in a relationship while the man she is dating does not. One Chad might have multiple women who perceive themselves to be his girlfriend while he thinks of himself as single

Nevertheless, the difference between SF and NYC is stark. Men of Silicon Valley, get thee to New York (or better yet Asia) lest your bloodline be extinguished.

Given an abundance of thirsty dudes, women will often reject even high quality mates. See: San Francisco.

Uh, in San Francisco, many dudes are thirsty for each other.

True. And it still remains the worst urban dating market for heterosexual men.

Pour one out for all the Chinese families whose lines are being ended because their one son ended up in Silicon Valley.

Honestly I've always been vaguely jealous of the Indian arranged marriage setup since it makes a lot of sense for socially awkward good provider guys. I'm sure there's horror stories, but the Upper class variety I've seen friends of both genders engage with just seems like a super useful social technology that'd broadly benefit the average Mottizen.

The jews have it to, apparently. I've been told that the mormons have an informal one.

AFAIK the Jews aren't quite as strong with it, though I think it depends on which particular geographic region you're in. I've got a Jewish friend who seemed to get kinda-setup with his now-girlfriend who's smart and I think considerably better than he'd achieve on the open dating app market, but I don't think it's as frank and mercantile as the Indian system.

I've always been vaguely jealous of the Indian arranged marriage setup

I second this, having watched my socially awkward Indian friends fail at western dating but then have the cushion to fall back on arranged matchmaker setups, and get marriageable, family-approved women with good jobs and prospects, often fairly attractive with such comparatively low effort, I can't help but being a bit jealous. I went through the fucking trenches of the dating wars to find my girlfriend.

Yeah. Sheer size of the Indian population and access to a hinterland of conservative women in the home country probably helps the system work, but it can't be that hard to work out something similar for other demos.

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