site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   17868 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 19, 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.

Where are the thousands of immensely popular books with competent men who don't pay the tax?

I don't know about thousands, but it certainly happens. In many hero's journey stories, the protagonist suffers on their way to success, but not because of it. You can absolutely find examples where there is no question as to whether the protagonist did the right thing or if the sacrifices made along the way were worth it. Mystery protagonists are a bit of gray area, since they often don't pay the tax directly, but they do suffer because of certain aspects of their personalities. Whether those aspects are key to their success is somewhat up for interpretation. Sherlock's substance abuse comes to mind as an extreme example of this.

More pertinent to the books she may be reading is the male love interests in women's romance stories. They certainly tend to benefit from their position and don't have real problems to speak of. Perhaps aside from a wild side that only the protagonist can tame.

There are all kinds of stories out there. By including some in your data and excluding others, you can find any kind of pattern that you want. It's just that those patterns don't actually say anything about writing as a whole, and counterexamples are at this point very abundant.

You can absolutely find examples where there is no question as to whether the protagonist did the right thing or if the sacrifices made along the way were worth it.

So are we talking about a protagonist like Frodo, then? She wants a female Frodo?

The first thing that comes to my mind for a female Frodo is Dorothy.

So are we talking about a protagonist like Frodo, then? She wants a female Frodo?

I think it's worth noting that Frodo was regularly surrounded by characters who were clearly superior to him in many ways. I think it's pretty likely that modern feminists would not be happy with a female character who needed guidance and support from male characters who were superior to her.

Or a female Christian Grey, or Doctor Who, or some career woman who has risen to the top of her field and lives a fulfilling life due to the choices she made.

Well, realistically she would probably prefer that none of those existed so her complaints would carry more weight and improve her reach on social media. Having real grievances would be a better look than making up claims that aren't true.

Interesting. I can't comment on Grey or Dr who directly since I've never seen Grey's anatomy, and I've only seen very very few dr who episodes. Do they really not suffer? If so, where does the drama come from in those shows? What is a typical episode (or season, if seasons carry the narrative weight)? They just keep having more people coming to them, and they help them without any particular cost to themselves?

I feel like I've seen softcore porn about women sex therapists who go and help client after client live better lives. Though that probably wouldn't (or would, if your hypothesis about them wanting to complain is correct) make a feminist happy. And it's also not anything anyone watches for the plot.

But these instances of hyper competent masculine characters who simply help others without cost to themselves seem to be so rare. It seems strange for feminists to go calling this out as a great inequity, when there don't seem to be very many.

Grey's anatomy

Christian Grey is the title character of Fifty Shades of Grey, not Anatomy.

Oops. In my defense, I think @Bombadil might have edited the post, originally saying just Grey. Not sure though.

I did edit it to clarify, but I did so before you posted your comment. I try to avoid substantial edits after people reply. It was definitely ambigous.

Regarding Grey's anatomy, while I have never seen the show, I believe it focuses mostly on the interpersonal drama that goes on in the hospital. So his professional skills don't really factor in all that much.

If so, where does the drama come from in those shows?

In dr. Who, The Doctor has human companions who he deeply cares about and a strict moral compass which severely limits his available actions. He also often has to solve problems under severe constraints and without access to his full arsenal of tools. The few episodes where The Doctor does get to show off are reserved for season finales or as payoffs to darker arcs. Christian Grey of fifty shades is a sadist (which is supposedly hot in the context of the story) and not the main character of the story he is a part of.

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