site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23436 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 12, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The solution to America’s rape crisis is to…..ban male only spaces. I will declare that I believe in male only spaces. I believe in female only spaces. I think both sexes have significant psychological differences that they both tend to find benefits to have some organizations that are segregated by sex. Both sides socialize differently when segregated and it has real benefits.

My broad understanding is that when male only places begin to allow female membership they tend to disappear a decade later. I read an interesting paper in the last year that when a college major gets about something like 30-50% female it then quickly becomes 100% female. Biology did this. Veterinary science did this. I think Law will survive but it’s going thru this process now.

The other major development on college rape crisis is an incident at FIT. In this case 19 year old drug dealer gave the two FIT students fentanyl while claiming it was cocaine. Then proceeded to rape them. One of them died. Many posting on Twitter leave the part out that this was brown drug dealers doing the raping and really bad stuff and show this as evidence of bad smart male rich kids.

I am 100% in favor of executing these drug dealers. Also 100% in favor of executing anyone selling fentanyl as it’s really bad stuff. I am also in favor of deporting and denaturalizing basically everyone of these kids background. This is sort of an interesting case where the left can use it as evidence of the bad stuff they claim is happening by leaving out details and then the right can come in while adding details and saying we have policy proposals to deal with this issue.

Rookie question but how was the drug dealer let into the campus? This seems to be a case of negligence.

FIT takes up a block between 7th and 8th avenue in Midtown Manhattan. It's not some sort of enclave, the only "security" is 27th street is closed to through traffic.

(incidentally, MOST college campuses in the US are open. You can stroll right through Harvard, for instance)

Reasonable question if you haven’t come across FIT before. It usually pops up in the news when some rich girl or celebrity attends. It’s a NYC school. They have dorms for 2300 students with a total undergraduate population of 7900. It’s not a traditional residential college. My first guess would be these students were just renting a NYC apartment.

Reasonable question if you haven’t come across FIT before

I surely have not.

My first guess would be these students were just renting a NYC apartment.

It seems I should've read the article before commenting:

According to prosecutors, Freire brought fentanyl to the students’ dorm room March 18 and falsely claimed that the substance, which he’d previously described as “straight poison,” was pure cocaine. At his urging, the women took the drug and almost immediately lost consciousness, prosecutors said. Freire was not a student at FIT.

At a court hearing in April, Freire’s lawyer, Mitchell Schwartz, called the woman’s death a tragedy but said Freire was not trying to ply the students with drugs.

If anything, he told Judge Sidney Stein, what preceded the overdoses — including the woman’s suggestion that Freire wear a wig and “look like a girl” so he could sneak up to her dorm room after she had invited him over — was “a story of teenagers doing what I would call ‘dumb teenager things.’”

“It’s not dumb teenager things to give somebody fentanyl, sir,” Stein replied.

True. I guess my assumption was wrong. Honestly also assumed a NYC campus was fairly liberal with letting guest in and less loco parentis.

Loco Parentis has been illegal for almost fifty years.

I am not seeing it listed as illegal. My University talked about having a responsibility like that. Perhaps not in a strictly legal away as that could bring on lawsuit risks but as a philosophy of what they are trying to do.

I am 100% in favor of executing these drug dealers. Also 100% in favor of executing anyone selling fentanyl as it’s really bad stuff.

I am only in favor of this if at the same time we execute those who falsely claim rape.

Female anti-social behavior is just as destructive and socially corrosive as male anti-social behavior; you are posting about the results of that now, yet are still only willing to punish stereotypically-male bad behavior.

The reason sex-segregated spaces work is because most men are psychologically/evolutionarily incapable of holding women to the same standards: removing themselves (and forming a mirror image, though not a copy, of a sorority) is simply the lowest-effort, highest-return strategy.

And it's fine to criticize the lowest-effort for being lowest-effort (and indeed, early 20th century boarding schools are famous for being lowest-effort), but when the average human being isn't capable of constructive criticism... well, that's the ur-justification for censorship, isn't it?

we execute those who falsely claim rape

Sure in theory, but only if the claim is proven false, which I suspect is practically never. Even if the accused has a perfect alibi, the "victim" may have misremembered or misspoke the location; you'd have to find multiple obvious fabrications, but if you report finding one, they may suddenly not remember much else, which is not unusual genuinely after a traumatic event. The problem is that many women who are actually raped don't report, fearing getting mislabeled as a false accuser, and judicial consequences will worsen this.

What should happen, obviously, is that people accused of rape should be minimally affected unless and until solid evidence. Which is obviously not completely possible, but can be mitigated a lot by providing extra (financial and emotional) support to them. Look at it this way: the people who hating the falsely accused cannot be coerced into not hating them, locking up the "victim" would only and surely increase their hatred. Also, we can teach women to not only avoid dangerous situations, but (if they want) entrap potential rapists with real evidence, because who's defending someone who would actually rape?

(Ok, that last part they have to ensure the person is unambiguously planning rape, otherwise we get more "teenagers beat up random guy they assumed was a pedophile" and we just had Primetime, not to mention the woman must be careful for her own safety...so it's not actually a good idea in general. But I can't let go that it may be worth it for someone accused of serial rape, to also vindicate them if they turn out OK, because an ambiguous rape hurts both parties' reputations.)

“ The problem is that many women who are actually raped don't report,”

My gut says approximately 0% of rape rape goes unreported.

It’s the rape that many people don’t consider rape that goes unreported. For example I don’t believe a husband can rape their wife. But by US law they can go.

Black grab grabbing a white girl and dragging her behind a building a raping here has a high report rate.

For example I don’t believe a husband can rape their wife. But by US law they can go.

So if a woman calmly and reasonably says "no right now," with a good reason (perhaps an injury or disruption to the specific anatomy), and makes it clear that she considers it important to the point where she will divorce her husband and take the kids away if he violates her clear express wishes..... that's not rape?

Historically before marital rape was specified as a crime and after states had the capacity to intervene in domestic violence cases, pretty much all marital rape was de facto criminalized under battery statutes. I’m not sure if de-facto things changed after marital rape was declared a specific crime, but there is a stable morality that states spouses owe each other some degree of sex but at the same time abuse is unacceptable. From what I can tell, mid 20th century marriages were not necessarily hyper abusive relative to now. They probably had higher rates of abuse, but I suspect the exact legal status of marital rape wasn’t the driving factor.

but there is a stable morality that states spouses owe each other some degree of sex but at the same time abuse is unacceptable.

Don't have any objection to this idea, and in general to an idea that consent is a more complicated construct in the setting of marriage, but that isn't what OP is saying.

No.

I think husbands should be good husbands. I do not believe a husband should have sex with her wife when she has legitimate pain or other issues. But I do not believe that is rape. Vows were exchanged. Both sides should follow their vows. But I do not believe the law should be involved in the relationship of a married couple.

I would never convict a man of raping his life because I don’t think the government should be involved in the relationship of married people.

But I do not believe the law should be involved in the relationship of a married couple.

So if a man beats his wife while she screams no please stop until she loses her voice and then he penetrates her and she spends the next three days crying and covered in bruises and bleeding from a torn vagina no crime was committed?

This was the law of the land until the 1970s. Sorry I have old school Christian beliefs.

I also do not believe a husband should do this to his wife.

He can burn in hell for treating his wife poorly.

I want you to imagine your sister being brutally raped and assaulted by her husband, beaten within an inch of her life, torn up inside, even if she gets a divorce she won't be able to have children again or walk ever again.

And what you aren't going to be mad about it because she was married?

If that's what marriage is to you then the majority of the country will demand it be banned.

More comments

Sure in theory, but only if the claim is proven false, which I suspect is practically never.

That's not really true. A 2016 meta-analysis of seven studies found that around 5% of sexual assault accusations reported to police were confirmed false, with estimates varying between studies. That's actually in roughly the same ballpark as the percentage of reported rapes that result in criminal convictions in some studies.

For example, a large British study from 2005 found that around 8% of reported rapes resulted in convictions, while around 9% were initially classified as false accusations by police.

Of course, this tells us very little about the actual proportion of true and false accusations. It mostly illustrates how difficult these cases can be to establish conclusively in either direction.

There is also a third category where the claimant is legitimately claiming rape in her mind but is factually mistaken or misconstrued what the legal standard for rape is (eg I got drunk and had sex with him).

The problem is that many women who are actually raped don't report, fearing getting mislabeled as a false accuser

It's certainly true that a very high number of rapes go unreported, but I don't think that it's because women are worried about being labelled a false accuser. In the UK for example, rape accusers get lifetime anonymity. The press literally cannot print their names, ever. We don't seem to have more or fewer rape accusations than peer countries as a consequence.

I think rape victims who don't report it do so because they don't want to relive the experience again and again, that they are doubtful that anything will come of it (often true due to the nature of the crime), that they blame themselves to some degree or that they think that putting the rapist behind bars won't undo what happened (which it won't, of course).

I think rape victims who don't report it do so because they don't want to relive the experience again and again, that they are doubtful that anything will come of it (often true due to the nature of the crime), that they blame themselves to some degree or that they think that putting the rapist behind bars won't undo what happened (which it won't, of course).

You're missing a really-big one, namely "the woman doesn't actually want her boyfriend to be subject to the immense penalties for rape". Because yeah, a very-large chunk of rapes are "girlfriend says she's not in the mood tonight, boyfriend fucks her anyway, she doesn't put up a fight because she doesn't think it's that big a deal" - and a rape conviction is definitely a big deal.

The mistake a lot of people make when thinking about rape is to picture the modal rape as a marauding molestor on the street forcing himself on a screaming woman. Aggravated rapes like that are rare. When you talk about "rapes" - as currently legally defined in the West - you're mostly talking about drunk hookups and "not in the mood tonight"s.

I think rape victims who don't report it do so because they don't want to relive the experience again and again, that they are doubtful that anything will come of it (often true due to the nature of the crime), that they blame themselves to some degree or that they think that putting the rapist behind bars won't undo what happened (which it won't, of course).

Of course, but these dynamics are in effect for literally every other crime.

Rape is not different, you generally have evidence that isn't just "black eye" like it is for every other type of assault, and the demand for rape [to punish] vastly exceeds its supply.

Men have to suck up "living through it" when they report assault or theft. Since women are equal to men, the notion they're "too re-traumatized" is special pleading.

Since women are equal to men, the notion they're "too re-traumatized" is special pleading.

They are not equal in this sense. Women are in general much weaker and lower in fortitude than men.

Well, not really. The issue here is that I would have to admit to being beaten, and the admission is just as bad for men as it is for women in the spheres men and women are "supposed" to dominate.

You really want to fuck [the distaff counterpart of] a man who just got home from being mugged or losing a fight, even if in the moment they enjoyed being in the fight (worse if they rated the experience positively re: bike_cuck.jpg[1])? Can't imagine that's particularly attractive; really, a man being robbed or beaten is probably about as much a turn-off for women as a woman being raped is for men.

They're both instances of being required to admit you're a 'failure' of your gender, as having to revisit it requires you tell a bunch of strangers that you were easily tricked or bullied into giving away the resources that [the other gender instinctively believes] yours is supposed to guard.

Thus, I believe either one constitutes a task of identical emotional difficulty (and exposing the same liability), and men are simply underrating the negative effects being stolen from (or not reacting to having been stolen from) has on women in the same way, and for the same reasons, that women tend to underrate the negative effects of body count (including and especially due to rape) on men.

Which is why I can't accept "well, women are inherently less able to do this because gender"; the burden of having to overcome one's own instincts to submit to the legal system that depends on evidence rests in equal measure on the shoulders of all.

Remember, privilege is simply the mechanism by which one escapes this mismatch between instinct and duty/fairness. Let's take the Clancy case- your instinct tells you to kill your children, and your privilege would let you get away with it, so the tension coming from you needing to deny your instincts is gone and you may kill at will. What relief from the burden of resisting yourself.

(And to think men believe women have less emotional fortitude, when women are infamous for using everything they think men care about to manipulate men into granting women more privilege. That is why they scream "racist" and "sexist" at you- women don't truly care about those things, they just know that men can be convinced to, and men fall for it time after time after time. To state you're completely immune as a class to the way women observably function is arrogance at best and stupidity at worst.)

In the same way, your instincts tell you not to seek redress for rape or theft because it'll be difficult and embarrassing, and your privilege to turn any accusation into an instant conviction lets you escape that difficulty. (And a "double standard" is an area where you get to let your instinct override duty in [implied] exchange for letting your counterparts' instinct override duty in a different area that's not mentioned in the initial complaint, but accumulating a social shortfall owed to the truth in the direction of the party that got the worse deal.)

[1] Men attach negative sexual valence to being stolen from or defeated because they aren't generally thinking about the effect it has on female attractiveness when it happens, even if it ultimately means nothing to give away victory. Men also haven't fully figured that out; ironically it was their mothers, not their fathers, who failed to properly teach them about women.

Women treat casual sex the same way when there are no other negative consequences for the same reason; slut-shaming is [among other things] an evolved intra-female (and to a point, male) reminder that men don't like that kind of conspicuous consumption. It remains an evolved response for women because 60 years of contraception doesn't erase the "sex = death" instinct that thousands upon thousands of generations stamped into their brains.

Rape is not different

It is. Sex isn't illegal, but sex without consent is illegal. That doesn't apply to e.g. murder or battery. Rape almost always happens in the privacy of a bedroom, whereas most crimes of personal assault happen publicly. Consent is also extremely hard to prove or disprove.

demand for rape [to punish] vastly exceeds its supply

In the UK about 85% of rapes go unreported, when comparing police reports to the victim of crime survey, which is the gold standard for measuring actual prevalance of crime. There is plenty of supply.

You seem to believe that the two statements:

  • False rape accusations are common
  • Rape is underreported

...are mutually exclusive. But they're not. They both can be (and I believe are) true.

Consent is also extremely hard to prove or disprove.

Again, my answer is "lol, lmao even".

Women are always believed, unless the rapist wasn't a native, in which case the police don't care (I figured I'd need to mention that specifically because this is the UK you're talking about, but it's not like it's that different anywhere else).

That doesn't apply to e.g. battery

Nonsense: you "consent" to a bar fight, you're perfectly within your rights to claim it was an unprovoked offense retroactively when you regret it the next morning, or when it doesn't buy you the entrance to the in-crowd you were hoping for.
Just like sex.

"But diseases, emotional trauma, and the risk of an 18-year-long injury" also apply in the same measure to losing a bar fight- sadly, there's no Plan B or DNA matching for black eyes.
Guess we'll have to let that inequality slide.

but only if the claim is proven false, which I suspect is practically never

lol, lmao even. The "victims" in this case tend to leave evidence that they didn't believe it was rape until it was a convenient cudgel to wield, as in the Cornell case, or leave evidence of active collusion, as in the Ghomeshi case (the aftermath was to make that evidence much more difficult to use, by the way- it embarrassed the privileged).

Every rape case that makes it to national media is false.

because who's defending someone who would actually rape?

Half the country defended a child-killer simply because she was a woman, including 11/12ths of the jury on that case. This is just a proxy for "who's defending someone who is male?", and the answer is, well, apparently nobody.

not to mention the woman must be careful for her own safety

She has the privilege of tens of millions of simps; why should she be careful? Even the notion that she should be careful is offensive, and you don't even believe that anyway [why would someone want to put themselves in harm's way to "entrap potential rapists with real evidence"?].

Ann Coulter had a piece talking about rape cases on campus that failed to capture the zeitgeist. They frequently involved black men raping (violently) white women.

I think this is largely the result of anti-Southerner liberal narratives. The accepted line of thinking among the Blue Tribe faithful regarding this matter is that Jim Crow laws, lynchings, anti-black racism in general etc. in the South both before and after the Civil War were mainly driven by the sexual anxiety of angry and frustrated white men regarding the inclinations of their women and the prowess of black men, the main manifestation of this being accusations that horny black thugs are always looking for opportunities to rape clueless white women (this being the usual justification for lynchings of blacks). The average white liberal is soaked in this propaganda and thus reacts with willful ignorance, eye-rolling, incredulity and disdain to reports of black-on-white rapes.

because who's defending someone who would actually rape?

You are, by defending false accusers. The largely ignored part of the false accusation discussion is that threats of accusations of sexual impropriety are used as a means of social control by women over men, including use as coercion to "unwanted sex".

I’m not defending false accusers. I’m defending real victims who can’t prove themselves, protecting false accusers in the process, only because we can’t separate them. It’s the classic hypothetical “will you spare one innocent person if it means sparing 100 guilty ones?”

Obviously, sparing 100 murderers who will probably reoffend is not worth the life of one innocent. But false accusers are not murderers (and don’t actually ruin one’s life), nor do they avoid social consequences that make it hard to reoffend - in any somewhat-democratic system that could legalize execution in the first place.

Moreover, the above hypothetical is what defends false accusation victims, since allegedly the ratio of false accusations is very low. In general, I believe the legal system shouldn’t interfere in ambiguous situations, because it makes some people distrust it and reduces incentive to avoid them. Protecting both (ambiguously) false accusers and victims makes everyone somewhat unhappy, but kills no-one, while the alternative makes one group much unhappier.

To clarify I am talking about people caught with fentanyl but ideally dealing it for execution. In this specific case we have a dead body as one of the girls died. So this isn’t just a female accusation….we have a dead body + friend saying they ordered cocaine (and likely true FIT = rich girl school. They do coke not fentanyl). This isn’t just a girl claiming a guy gave her fentanyl.

For fentanyl use we have such a huge amount of users who die from the product that if we execute some people caught with possession who were only addicts and we’re not dealers then we have a significant margin of error where we kill a few users for possession. It’s less now but we were running 100k+ fent deaths a year.

So this isn’t just a female accusation

Yes it is, because the claim isn't "punish the drug dealers", it's "punish men for the crime of being most likely to be drug dealers".

Revealed preferences are that women don't actually care about the 100k+ fent deaths (most of which are men, by the way- this would be "hideous femicide" if it was, of course); this is just that "no I'm not Christian, so this argument won't work on me" meme.

At some point the facts in a case actually point to the people involved of doing the crime. And people who did the crime should be punished for the crime.

I haven’t looked into all the evidence of the case but this does fit my mental model of this sounds likely. Someone did already plead guilty in this case so they have testimony. FIT is in NYC and seems to be mostly for rich girls. A 19 year old white girl is extremely unlikely to be directly dealing with the Mexican Cartel being in fentanyl and is the dealer. My mental model of a 19 year old rich white girl is that it sounds very plausible that they buy cocaine.

At some point you do have to have a realistic model of the world and reward the good guy and punish the bad guy. We can’t always be the girl is always lying and the guy is innocent etc. I guess you can disagree with my logic that drug dealer is likely guilty but don’t actually believe that and why?

I am only in favor of this if

No I'm in favor of this unconditionally. Executing drug dealers on the spot is an unmitigated good for society. It's one of those "fix everything with zero downsides" buttons that our society mysteriously doesn't press because reasons.

Executing drug dealers on the spot is an unmitigated good for society.

What does this even mean, "on the spot"? I assume it's something like, immediately at the place of action, i.e., as the drugs themselves are being dealt (or very shortly thereafter).

Surely, abandoning centuries of criminal procedure would mitigate some of the good for society. (I would still think this even if I were in favor of execution as punishment for drug dealing, which I'm not.)

Sure, but how do you do this if it works like this:

  • to buy drugs, you open a self-destructing chat to a random Telegram handle
  • the person at that end tells you to wire the money to a random CashApp account
  • when the money is received, a different random Telegram handle opens a self-destructing chat with you and tells you where the dose is hidden?

Both handles, if you manage to subpoena Telegram, are linked to prepaid phone numbers from an African country.

Making it so anyone that doesn't have this level of informational hygiene can't sell drugs seems good on the margins. There's nothing stopping this approach from being done now, and yet people are still arrested as drug dealers. The higher you set the lower bound on intelligence for drug dealing, the fewer drug dealers you get, especially since higher intelligence gives better alternatives for a career path. They'll need intelligent mules as well, or the police could just keep an eye on locations they've used before.

This particular approach seems vulnerable to scams, as well: just spread your prepaid number as a "drug ordering number", take the money, then direct the buyer to a random location (where there aren't any drugs hidden). When they complain, claim that you put them there and someone must have taken them. Word will probably eventually spread and people will stop using it, but you can just create another one.

Now you need a second communication system to legitimize the numbers, and you have a problem: if the communication is anonymous, it's easy to spread false information leading ultimately to scam numbers. If it's not anonymous, initial information about numbers can potentially be traced back and used to identify drug dealers.

Actually, what's stopping assorted street junkies from just identifying the drug distributors, following them to the dropoff, and taking their doses before the customer does? There's a limit to how much force the anonymous dealers can exert, because if they're regularly sending thugs to beat up thieves, now the thugs are on police radar and can be traced back. Maybe some sort of thug-for-hire service where they just get an anonymous telegram text with a picture of who to beat up, but there's still nothing stopping the police from arresting them.

This particular approach seems vulnerable to scams, as well: just spread your prepaid number as a "drug ordering number", take the money, then direct the buyer to a random location (where there aren't any drugs hidden). When they complain, claim that you put them there and someone must have taken them. Word will probably eventually spread and people will stop using it, but you can just create another one.

That's avoided by asking your using friends which contacts are trustworthy.

They'll need intelligent mules as well, or the police could just keep an eye on locations they've used before.

That's true, but the mules are usually random people that need a quick buck. They pick their own locations and send the info to another TG contact. This helps with randomization.

Actually, what's stopping assorted street junkies from just identifying the drug distributors, following them to the dropoff, and taking their doses before the customer does?

Yes, some people do this (or at least used to do this). Not street junkies, but hobbyist users who don't follow the mules (since they are random people), but think like them and check out promising dead drop locations.

Just to clarify. Atleast in my Overton window drug dealer needs to refer to “fentanyl” drug dealer in the US context because that shit kills a lot of people. I would be open to having discussions on other drugs but that is the only area where I think the costs/benefit is extremely in favor of harsh treatment. And that’s regardless of the law but just from a human moral reasoning position that selling a product that kills 100k people a year when they are young just isn’t a way to make money. Selling cocaine to rich kids going to ELEVEN I can view morally as much more of just making a buck even though it’s illegal. People don’t die because they did a line of real coke. They might die doing cocaine for 20 years.

Personally I'd prefer a drug policy calibrated to be more towards overreaction than underreaction. A ton of the current mess in the West around drug users is due to essentially starting from a place of accommodating light drug users/handling them without life ruining consequences which then creates a legislative and philosophical contagion through the whole thing.

As usual I'd like to see a much more specific term than 'drug' being used here. I don't think the guy who sells mushrooms to his friends deserves to die.

I replied above before saw you comment. I think this is a generalized problem of message boards with 2 fault points.

  1. In this case easy to be more specific but likely forgot. You can make 2-3 assumptions on his meaning. “Fentanyl” DD. “Some classification of hard” DD. “Everything” illegal. My guess is 1 or 2.
  2. The full list of exception and complexity is fairly complicated and you need to use a simplified argument so every debate isn’t a 20 min to read full manifesto.

(1) you can fix by being a better writer (I am fairly bad writer). (2) doesn’t have a solution especially for readers not familiar with the subject

Executing drug dealers on the spot is an unmitigated good for society.

Only if the gender breakdown of drug dealers is 50/50. I'm in favor of affirmative action for anti-social behavior preferred by each gender here because the alternative to doing that is "ban all male spaces, any attempt at reducing rape is an unmitigated good for society".

So no, I'm actually not in favor of executing additional drug dealers. Fix the slander problem- which is as destructive to my society as your drugs are to yours- and only then will I permit you to destroy the drug dealers.

Why do we care about the gender make up of drug dealers? The patriarchy is about imposing order for the benefit of society.

  1. No one has ever really shown that statistically fraternities have any higher incidence of rape than anywhere else. Much like another much maligned organization of my brothers, the Catholic Church, they are unfairly maligned because they are more organized than their equally rapey but less hierarchical competitors. Do girls occasionally get raped at frat parties? Yes. But college girls are less likely to be victims of sexual assault than similarly aged girls who aren't in college, and I'm not sure that girls attending frat parties have ever been shown to to be victimized at higher rates than other women on campus.

  2. On the other hand, I think the age of the fraternity system has passed. When I read what people want to do to fraternities after the latest controversy, I always wonder why these people didn't go to Liberty or Messiah. They could have had the kind of college experience they wanted there. Having fraternities as semi-autonomous wings of the university itself cannot function. It's time for a divorce: the university should not sanction or sponsor or bless the fraternity, but neither should they regulate how their students live or act in their free time off campus. If a group of men want to live together, want to adopt a common logo and name, want to invite other students over, that is none of the university's business. Unless, again, they want to adopt a student code of conduct along the lines of Liberty or Messiah. Universities need to let students organize on their own, without Official Organizations looking over their shoulders at every turn.

  3. If Fraternities are behaving poorly towards women on campus, then the proper target for feminist lobbying is other women on campus. Convince hot young freshman girls not to go to parties at the fraternities. This would change the behaviors of those frats instantly and completely. That the Campus Feminist Collectives can't or won't do this indicates either that they're lying, that they don't represent all women on campus, or that they're stupid. It's probably all three.

If Employers are behaving poorly towards workers on campus, then the proper target for unionist lobbying is other workers on campus. Convince workers not to go work at those employers. This would change the behaviors of those employers instantly and completely. That the Communists Unionists can't or won't do this indicates either that they're lying, that they don't represent all workers, or that they're stupid. It's probably all three.

Sororities are (quite literally) a union of women, so their actions are identical to what we see from other unions.

It's time for a divorce: the university should not sanction or sponsor or bless the fraternity, but neither should they regulate how their students live or act in their free time off campus.

The center cannot hold. The Harvard "finals clubs" have long since been divorced from the University; Harvard made it an offense punishable by exclusion form all student organizations to be a member of one. The opposing philosophy is totalizing; it cannot be compromised with and any attempt to do so is merely yielding ground.

Harvard apparently had to stop banning them when an anti-discrimination Supreme Court decision ended up with reasoning that would count the ban as discrimination.

The decision which is not linked there. Bostock doesn't let you say "well, we ban men from men's clubs and women from women's clubs so it is equal treatment."

My broad understanding is that when male only places begin to allow female membership they tend to disappear a decade later. I read an interesting paper in the last year that when a college major gets about something like 30-50% female it then quickly becomes 100% female. Biology did this. Veterinary science did this. I think Law will survive but it’s going thru this process now.

I think cases like these just reflect the changes in the real world impact these fields have. A veterinarian used to treat animals that were used for producing food and raw materials, but now most vets treat small dogs with hereditary deformities that are useless for anything significant. Men realized this and switched to other fields with more advantageous bargaining positions.

So when a field is slowly becoming irrelevant, men start to slowly abandon it and the share of women increases, and when the share of women is at 30%-50% then we are on the verge of total collapse and very soon all men will leave and only the women remain.

So when a field is slowly becoming irrelevant

Can you really say that (human) medicine, dentistry, law, accountancy and bioscience are all becoming irrelevant? Are the only relevant fields engineering and software?*

  • Obvious caveat about AI potentially making all human labour obsolete.

Well, firstly, if a field becoming irrelevant leads to men leaving, then it does not automatically follow that the reverse is also true, so just by men leaving we cannot deduce that the field is becoming irrelevant. But if we take human medicine, then for example it seems that women like to treat children, and I would think that is the one demographic that is generally the healthiest and least in need of treatment. It also seems that there is talk about how these female majority specializations do not get paid as much as the male majority ones, which could indicate that there is not as much demand, which would support the idea that they are less relevant.

My point was that I do not think it is realistic that men leave a well paying field just because they feel a little bit uncomfortable when the field becomes majority female, because men seem happy to do many kinds of hugely uncomfortable jobs if the pay is good enough. It is more likely that there is a more fundamental cause behind the cases where a field slowly gets more female and then suddenly all the men leave, so a 50% share of women does not automatically lead to a 100% share of women, there must be some more fundamental reason that is driving all the men out.

Locally, they are desperate for large-animal veterinarians. The graduate pool is overwhelmingly (80%+) women, and disproportionately (relative to demand) focused on cute pets instead of agricultural animals.

Of course, there are no efforts to reduce this lack of diversity.

And then the fact that large-animal vets end up both being disproportionately male (relative to the field as a whole) and getting paid more gets blamed on male privilege so women can be "oppressed" even in a field where they are the overwhelming majority...

Surprised there isn't sufficient horse girls population to produce large animal female Veterinarians. I had a graduate who was a Dressage rider and some of the things she'd casually tell me about horse maintenance/ownership were 'oh god ew' to me and she seemed to have a lot of other intelligent girls in her social network who were hands on with it all.

Even if you manage to cultivate a horse-focussed large animal practice, brute strength is often a limiting factor -- we actually had a husband-wife team (mixed practice, both vets) for a while, and even though she was probably more knowledgeable about horses than he was, there were a lot of of calls that she simply was not physically effective at dealing with. One time he and I skidded a cast horse around to get his legs pointing downhill in -10 and blowing snow -- then lifted him to his feet (the horse, not the vet) with straps around his belly. If the wife had been on that call, the horse would have died.

Large animal veterinary medicine can be a little too grim for horse lovers.

The Stereotypical Horse Girl is also rich as flip, and as such, doesn't need the money.

I still remember when my mother took horse riding lessons and made noises about buying the horse she really liked, with a price-tag of around 40K.

For a horse.

That will die in a decade or so.

My response to this was along the lines of 'Are you absolutely insane?', especially as she was expecting me to help take care of the damn thing. That would not have ended well.

That will die in a decade or so.

Horses are capable of reproducing though, unlike cars.

Or as Heinlein phrased it, "A horse can make another horse, but that's a trick a tractor never learned."

Large animal veterinary care is not only gross, it is dangerous, and most of it is not pets, it is livestock.

Don't horses fit better into the 'livestock' category than the 'pet' category to begin with? They can be pretty dangerous as well.

I don't think most of the horses that are still kept in any Western country are kept to serve as lifestock.

Yeah, but I understood to argument to be "being a vet is not about cute little animals, but big bulky ones", horses, whether or not you officially classify them as livestock, are more similar to cows when it comes to maintenance than they are to cats or dogs, and girls who are into horseback riding will already be familiar with that type of animal.

I know but a lot of horse girls are very comfortable with gross/dangerous stuff in my experience. Maybe I'm over-estimating the population but my ex-graduate came from an agricultural family and had all sorts of fucked up stories

My assumption is that cattle are what pay the bills, and mostly-horse practice is relatively rare.

Most horse lovers are women, but most female animal lovers are not horse lovers.

Unless vet schools are filtering by interests, puppy lovers will still far outnumber horse lovers.

I'm guessing most male large animal vets come from an agricultural background involving large herds, rather than equestrian

Some chicken or egg here right? Vets use to do things like treat livestock and now do little dogs. Did that change because of the gendering or did the job change and then gender ratios changed? Tough to know.

I did think biology ratios were more extreme but AI is telling me 66% female and my guess was over 90% now. Maybe some of this is being a primary path for med school. In biology though my opinion would be it’s one of the most interesting times to be in biology as AI unlocks capabilities to create treatments that were impossible before. I think AI likely unlocks a lot more biology than physics in the medium term.

Some chicken or egg here right?

Regarding vets, my wild guess regarding the matter is that as the agricultural sector serves as the livelihood of fewer and fewer citizens, things getting to a point where the people employed there are a handful of lifelong professionals and a huge mass of illegal immigrants, any agricultural work pretty much disappears as a potential career choice for anyone who's not already involved in it directly.

Some chicken or egg here right? Vets use to do things like treat livestock and now do little dogs. Did that change because of the gendering or did the job change and then gender ratios changed? Tough to know.

Not really, no. What vets do is mostly determined by supply and demand. If all vets suddenly wanted to specialize in treating some rare kind of pet, for example a squid, it would not mean that there would suddenly appear lots of pet squids waiting to be treated.

There's probably tons of vets that really want to work with exotic animals on a zoo staff, not so many jobs to go around- this is the usual pattern for such things- the majority of vets being women working on designer dogs is because owners of designer dogs have money to spend.

Even the very largest and most ‘elite’ (meaning well funded) zoos have a handful - like 3-6 - full time vets on staff, meanwhile they might have a hundred zookeepers. The same major city might have thousands of full-time vets who work on domestic animals.

My understanding is that the vets who are on staff handle most day to day stuff or surgery for minor injuries, ailments, sicknesses, and then if they actually need to, say, operate on a lion they’ll just go to the country’s most prestigious veterinary college and find some professor who has spent 20 years working with them in the wild in Africa and have him do it, probably for free.

The only way to be a real big exotic mammal vet is probably to go to Africa or Asia and work on a big wildlife reserve.

This seems like one of those proposals of the form "We tried policy A and the problem got worse. This must be due to the external reason B, instead of the failings of the policy. We need more policy A!" It might make sense, but given the policy's failure one really needs to explain the observations within a mechanistic framework to be convincing. Those who advocated for policy A without predicting the failure should lose credibility, but since when has a politician or pundit ever been held accountable for poor policy?

In living memory, the only policy I can think of politicians and pundits eating crow on has been the legalization of online gambling, and that only happened because the pundits promoting gambling take pride in their ability to predict real-world phenomena rather than the partisan battles.

So without a mechanistic model which makes a contrary prediction, it seems illogical to say that the solution to sexual assault is "more intersexual mixing", especially when for the case in question the woman entered the male space of her own accord, asked the men by text message if she could do drugs off their genitals, and asked for it to happen again afterward. There are a bunch of different ways you could make that sequence of events less probable, but further integrating mens' and womens' private spaces is not one of them.

As another example of a policy that makes no sense to me, we might consider sex integrated units in the military. These units have high sexual assault and pregnancy rates. And yet it seems to be the tribe which is ostensibly pro-woman which both pushes for more integrated units and is horrified by the sexual assault. You put young men and young women together in a high stress environment with a strong social heirarchy and what do you expect to happen? EvoPsych predicts women fall for their superior officers.

My instinct says the best way to reduce the sexual assault rate at colleges would be to revert back to single-sex dorms without visitation. This provides the college perfect legal cover, and any woman who enters the male dorm is certainly consenting to something. College sexual relations will still happen, but at some point people do make decisions themselves and do consent. (There are a lot of stories from the 1970s and 1980s about lines of women from the local women's college entering and leaving the men's college dormitory via the basement windows on weekends.)

Both sides socialize differently when segregated and it has real benefits.

It also has the very sizeable drawback of people regarding the opposite gender as other, as categorically beyond one's ingroup; I think that might be what Dr Roth is getting at.

I am 100% in favor of executing these drug dealers. Also 100% in favor of executing anyone selling fentanyl as it’s really bad stuff.

I'm not sure I approve, but I can see where you're coming from; you'd certainly have a plausible argument that 'giving someone fentanyl while claiming it is cocaine' constitutes Depraved Indifference.

I am also in favor of deporting and denaturalizing basically everyone of these kids background.

Aaaaand that's where you lost me.

[Edited for clarification] My opinion of the use of ethnic/racial heuristics in such matters is best described by that picture where Batman breaks a rifle in half:

This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

It also has the very sizeable drawback of people regarding the opposite gender as other, as categorically beyond one's ingroup; I think that might be what Dr Roth is getting at.

I wonder if this is just reinventing chaperones: we want men and women to be interacting so they get to learn about each other, but when left alone there's potential for abuse. Thus, allow intersex mixing, but only in controlled spaces with authority figures that ensure safety.

You'll get people sneaking out as a second-order effect, but this both shows a high level of consent on the part of both participants (since they had to defy the official rules to do it) and adds some level of "well you hopped over the safety railing, what did you expect?" It also self-corrects in that the answer to "this bad thing happened to this person" is "stay with the chaperones".

Of course, that fence got torn down, so presumably going back to it would just lead to the same sequence occurring again.

Objectively speaking the other sex is the other, though. Women are your fellow human beings, yes, but also fundamentally different from you. They aren't you, and you aren't them.

It also has the very sizeable drawback of people regarding the opposite gender as other

But frat members do socialize with women, in parties, other clubs, and classes.

The solution is to increase mandatory co-ed socialization, but that doesn’t require preventing same-sex socialization. And too much co-ed causes some men (and women) to resent the opposite gender, which may be pressure-released in same-sex settings.

I have the same opinion of the use of ethnic/racial heuristics in such matters as 1980s-comics!Batman has of firearms.

The average comic book writer has the moral and intellectual sophistication of a five-year-old. The outliers tend to be sick, depraved fucks who openly identify with the villains.

Yet Batman consistently has to put the same bad guy back in the insane asylum. Perhaps Batman is not a role model?

It also has the very sizeable drawback of people regarding the opposite gender as other, as categorically beyond one's ingroup;

Citation needed. People who want to equalize the sexes seem at least as, if not more, prone to putting the opposite one in the "categorical outgroup" box.

Batman quite often shoots the bad guys. Before being gayed up in the 60s or so.

I’ve always found that to be such a stupid distinction anyway. Anyone who was going out every night and beating the hell out of two dozen people with kung fu would be killing people pretty regularly whether he was trying to or not.

I will declare that I believe in male only spaces. I believe in female only spaces. I think both sexes have significant psychological differences that they both tend to find benefits to have some organizations that are segregated by sex. Both sides socialize differently when segregated and it has real benefits.

I agree 100%. This is what bummed me out so much about the integration of the Boy Scouts; I guess we'll see how long they at least stick to gender divided troops. I know as a young somewhat nerdy kid, having that somewhat nerdy male-only social space during my teens was super valuable. I distinctly remember there was this reoccurring thing, where you'd see your buddies from scouts in school and vice versa, but always got along way better in scouts, because with all the social pressure of high school gone, guys could relax and be themselves. Some guys were practically different people when you dropped them in that co-ed setting.

Many posting on Twitter leave the part out that this was brown drug dealers doing the raping and really bad stuff and show this as evidence of bad smart male rich kids.

I saw a tweet a while ago I keep thinking back to, that said something along the lines of "it's amazing how much of leftist's societal critique is just misattributing to white men all the bad stuff minorities do".

This was maybe most blatant with "Stop Asian Hate", where the entire movement had to be memory-holed when the switcheroo became too obvious.

My broad understanding is that when male only places begin to allow female membership they tend to disappear a decade later. I read an interesting paper in the last year that when a college major gets about something like 30-50% female it then quickly becomes 100% female.

Not in STEM, despite decades of trying. Even 20% is far more than the classes and conferences I’ve attended.

Solution: instead of extreme drinking, frat parties host LAN tournaments, hackathons, and pen testing contests. Women seem to conspicuously avoid these, which I think is a shame honestly, but at least they’re way more fun and don’t lead to alcoholism.

Apparently philosophy also suffers from lack of women, so alternatively, the frats can become debate clubs. Instead of hazing, require inductees to demonstrate some actual understanding of Hegel.

(And yes, there are a significant amount of trans women compared to cis woman, but they’re all still a tiny minority compared to the men.)

I think within stem biology has been very female coded while electrical engineering etc is male coded so of the 20% most are in biology related.

Frats aren't men only spaces though. They may only allow male residents but a huge part of their whole reason for existence is to throw parties that hot women will attend.

But I do think "greek life" is legitimately harmful in many ways with their widespread hazing and drug and alcohol abuse. Never been in one though so I can't really say if having a gender segregated reaidential environment is good or bad.

Part of the issue is you only see the stories that are bad in the news and not the day to day life.

Night life of course becomes co-ed, but during the day and week it’s mostly men.

I think my school did it better where we had dorms that were male or female and you were required to stay 3 years and about 40% stayed all 4 years. They still did a lot of frat type things like organizing dances and events. I think it’s better because the assignment were random so you didn’t have only the cool kids in one frat and then lower ranked frats. Model wise I think this is better. And even Seniors who moved off campus would interact with the dorm they had gone to.

Hazing is stupid. But that’s a small part of frats and I don’t think all even do it.

Is hazing stupid or is it bonding?

The underlying psychology of hazing is likely to mimic an aspect of war. Basically training for war and we have a real evolutionary advantage for soldiers to feel brotherhood with their fellow soldiers. Sometimes in war it’s advantageous for a soldier to do things bad for their own health that benefits the group.

Therefore going thru painful hazing with your new frat friends helps you develop a feeling of being “brothers” or basically family from going thru the experience together.

I would still say it’s mostly stupid in the modern context…….but things usually don’t exists unless they fulfill a real benefit.

Stupid. Idk where but I remember studies show that group cohesion and performance is lower in groups with hazing versus not.

Intuitively there is some idea that hazing puts everyone through a common hardship that people can share, and this probably drives self reported claims of benefits from hazing, but honestly I think it's just cope and also rationalism of I got mine so you aren't getting a free pas sort of mentality.

Far better than hazing is just, you know, working together to complete some task or just doing activities together.

I trust studies very little

Yes sociology studies have mostly proven to have limited value. My guess is because p-hacking is easy and publish or perish in academia is largely true so you have intense pressure to do some p-hacking and writing commentary that sounds truish. With 10’s of thousands of social science academics there just aren’t enough new true things to discover.

My only concept of Greek life is "they throw parties that women know they will be raped at, yet still mysteriously attend"

It could just be true that going to the party is positive ev despite the possibility of getting raped. Like what if it was like a 2% chance of getting raped, 80% chance of nothing happening, and 18% chance of getting in a hot drug fueled gangbang with a bunch lf attractive men.

'Hot drug fueled gangbang' is unlikely to be something women value sufficiently to distinguish clearly from rape.

The real upside is likely a small chance of ending up in a relationship with a rich chad.

And if the hot drug fueled gangbang turns out to be socially deleterious then you've got final say on whether it was rape or not.

Revealed preferences has some similarities to Chesterton fence in that it’s giving you information that a behavior or rule might have a purpose. In this case it signifies majority of girls actually like and enjoy having frats. I think revealed preferences is often correct except with some limitations when you can make legitimately addiction arguments.

thatisthejoke.jpg

I didn't go to a college with frats. Yet I still had to hear the women in my social circles talk about frat party rape culture.

And the bear said to the man, "You're not here to hunt, are you?"

Honestly I think the sentiment is exactly backwards. Rape culture arises less because men hang around men and more because they don’t. If a man doesn’t learn a healthy male view of sex, he cannot hope to get a girlfriend or at least will have a lot of difficulty. Add in that he never learns from other men how to be sexual in a healthy way, and he’s probably going to have the idea of women as objects or as perfect beings.

I'd argue the traditional way of learning from other men how to be sexual in a healthy way has been to have a father and uncles who live in happy marriages and to instinctively imitate their mannerisms and attitudes, and the way to learn a healthy (realistic) view of female behavior was to have sisters, nieces and aunts to interact with and observe.

And people wonder why so many young men want to cut their dicks off.

At least then they might be seen as human.

Yes I do agree a lot of the mtf is about getting to not be male anymore and all the hate. Not sure on what % but I certainly think a significant part of the rise in trannies is coming because of the men are bad culture.

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