site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12412 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.

Women’s educational and professional gains create some awkwardness for an inherited script in which the man is supposed to be at least as accomplished as his partner, preferably a little more so.

This is not a script, right, but a built in preference of women - like the equivalent of men liking well endowed 22 year olds? Is there any society in which women don’t go for men of higher social status or means, however that may be defined? I don’t know the answer, but it does seem that social status is really low on the list for men, and that elevating the earnings and educational outcome of women above men made a large swath of the population undatable.

Men do seem to care about the social status of their partners. Women care a little bit more, but it's not like height where many to most men see it as an irrelevancy and most women have strong preferences(although this preference is for 'taller than her' rather than 'being 6'3' and- gentlemen- cowboy boots are cool right now, you can add two inches for $200 with significant resale value and they never wear out).

For me(n?), status only matters to the extent its a signal of shared experience/interests and a baseline level of maturity (is she going to want to go to museums or discuss interesting books with me? Will she tank the family finances with irresponsible spending? Will she be able to help our children with their homework?). Social status only matters in itself at the extremes (I'm not bringing a stripper to meet my parents), and in that I have a slight aversion to dating someone who makes substantially more than me (I work at a non-profit, so I've made my peace with the possibility of being slightly outearned, couldn't abide a situation where I felt financially dependent). If anything, her father's social status is more important, because it speaks to how she was raised and how she likely intends to raise our children, as well as what her expectations are for me.

Elementary school teacher is the single most attractive profession for a woman, in my opinion. It's a respectable middle class career, not highly remunerative or prestigious, but strongly signalling an affinity for and skill working with young children, as well as with hours/benefits ideally suited for raising children if she chooses to continue working after starting a family. A "high status" job like doctor or lawyer is slightly unattractive, because it sends opposite signals. I'm not looking for someone to help finance expensive vacations or get me into exclusive parties, I'm looking for someone who I enjoy spending time with and who will be a good mother, which if anything slightly anti-correlates with a high status career.

I think what matters to men is what status correlates with. A woman raised in a trailer park with low-status parents is more likely to be either obese or on drugs, most likely covered in nasty tattoos, foul-mouthed, may have had to exchange sex for housing. All traits that a lot of men might not like.
On the other hand, a woman raised by absent professionals might have similarly damaging personality traits, but might be more effective at concealing them (having parents bail them out, paying for abortions, etc).
The ideal for a regular guy is a humble woman who was not raised in desperate circumstances but with strong conservative family values. Unfortunately these women usually get taken pretty quickly.

I think it's more accurate to say that upper middle-class established men care about the social status of their marriage partners.

Well, it's true everywhere I've cared to look. Definitely everywhere I've ever been.

At that point, biology becomes the most parsimonious candidate.

Considering how many women fall for musicians and gang members, it is clearly not as simple as men liking well endowed 22 year olds. "Money and accomplishments" does not make you attractive to women the same way as "Young, fit, nice tits and ass" makes you attractive to men.

Considering how many women fall for musicians and gang members

The common characteristic here is “Has lots of social status”. A man can get this by either being a pillar of the community or the nastiest gang member.

This is, alas, an inherently scarce resource as it runs on a ranked rather than an absolute scale, whereas “tits and ass” is, at least in principle, something every woman could acquire.

It could also be ambition, drive, initiative, spontaneity, and ability to stand your ground.

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