site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   24419 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.

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.

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.

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 would compare the average horse that is kept anywhere in the West to large dog breeds: big, heavy and potentially dangerous, basically kept as a pet i.e. for the entertainment of the owner, and not for any economic role.

More comments

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