site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   23988 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Poor Miller's Boy and the Cat is pretty much exactly Cinderella but with a boy. Basically the king's daughter, in the form of a cat picks a poor and mistreated but hardworking boy to live with her in a golden palace. https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/the_poor_millers_boy_and_the_cat

I guess it's not as famous because it's a bit less plausible a fantasy for a boy to be picked out of obscurity by a princess than for a girl to be picked by a prince.

The Poor Miller's Boy and the Cat is pretty much exactly Cinderella but with a boy. Basically the king's daughter, in the form of a cat picks a poor and mistreated but hardworking boy to live with her in a golden palace. https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/the_poor_millers_boy_and_the_cat

I read the story and found something which to me was very interesting. Basically, in order to get his reward, the boy must serve the princess for 7 years; he must chop wood; tend to the meadow; and build a house:

, however, had to serve the cat, and chop some wood every day, and to do that, he had an axe of silver, and the wedge and saw were of silver and the mallet of copper. So he chopped the wood small; stayed there in the house and had good meat and drink, but never saw anyone but the tabby-cat and her servants. Once she said to him, "Go and mow my meadow, and dry the grass," and gave him a scythe of silver, and a whetstone of gold, but bade him deliver them up again carefully. So Hans went thither, and did what he was bidden, and when he had finished the work, he carried the scythe, whetstone, and hay to the house, and asked if it was not yet time for her to give him his reward. "No," said the cat, "you must first do something more for me of the same kind. There is timber of silver, carpenter's axe, square, and everything that is needful, all of silver, with these build me a small house." Then Hans built the small house, and said that he had now done everything, and still he had no horse. Nevertheless the seven years had gone by with him as if they were six months.

In other words, the boy had to prove that he was worthy.

While it's true that Cinderella had to do household chores, I would argue that the point of the chores was not to show how faithful she was, but rather to (narratively) show that society did not recognize her value.

So I would say that no, the two stories are not exactly the same. They are different in almost exactly the way described by posters who have argued that women automatically get value while men must earn their value.

To be sure, I don't dispute that if you looked hard enough you could find stories out there which go against this dichotomy. But it does seem like, at a minimum, the idea is very deeply ingrained in human thinking.

It's true, but what the boy has to do to prove to the cat he is worthy is pretty easy – just stick around and do the chores he is told to do. And it's worth noting that even in Cinderella, she is not literally taken from rags to riches with no agency. She has to 'do' a few things like blend in at a high society event, disguising her real identity; sprint out of the ball before midnight to avoid humiliation; and escape being locked in a room by her stepmother so that she can try on the slipper and prove she is the woman the prince danced with.

It's true, but what the boy has to do to prove to the cat he is worthy is pretty easy – just stick around and do the chores he is told to do.

Narratively it's 7 years of labor. More importantly, it's very clearly framed as stuff the protagonist must do to in order to prove himself.

She has to 'do' a few things like blend in at a high society event, disguising her real identity; sprint out of the ball before midnight to avoid humiliation; and escape being locked in a room by her stepmother so that she can try on the slipper and prove she is the woman the prince danced with.

Those things aren't really framed as labors she must do to prove her worthiness.

So I'm still not seeing it.

No, she isn't proving her worthiness to the prince with these actions. She's proved her worthiness to us the audience through her previous years of suffering with dignity though. The prince etc is her reward for that from our point of view, even though he probably doesn't know anything about her other than her beauty. You'll see this sometimes the other way round where an action hero gets the girl at the end despite her having only a very vague idea of what he's just done. E.g. he runs out of a burning building and they kiss, all she knows is that he's survived. Narratively her love is the reward for what we the audience know makes him worthy. (In such stories there's usually also an A plot in which he saves the world or such.)

I could believe that in-story characters rewarding a protagonist just for being beautiful and themselves is more common with female characters. I think they still have to manifest their character in action for us the audience to see they deserve to be selected by the Prince though.

She's proved her worthiness to us the audience through her previous years of suffering with dignity though.

That's not how the story is framed. And in a fable for children, if such a connection were intended it would be pretty obvious.Just look at the Miller's Boy and Cat story. They don't exactly hide the fact that the protagonist is being rewarded for his 7 years of faithful service.

I agree it's not how the story is framed (it's not a meta story), but it's how the story works. We wouldn't accept her being rewarded if she didn't demonstrate her character by having gone through something tough first. Granted, the Miller's Boy and Cat is not exactly the same in that the princess chooses Foolish Hans, then tests him with the seven years of labour before actually rewarding him. But it's made explicit that he is neither talented nor clever, just someone who gets on with drudgework in an unquestioning manner, so the message is similar in its appeal: that if you're lucky, you may find yourself catapulted from your long suffering peasant life to fabulous riches without having to do anything particularly out of the ordinary.

We wouldn't accept her being rewarded if she didn't demonstrate her character by having gone through something tough first.

Well, what if "going through something tough" had simply been that her (Cinderella's) sisters got nice clothes and such while she had to wear hand-me-downs; the sisters got to go to fancy events while she didn't, etc. In that case, she's not particularly doing any chores. It seems to me that with that change, the story would not be fundamentally different.

Well, what if "going through something tough" had simply been that her (Cinderella's) sisters got nice clothes and such while she had to wear hand-me-downs; the sisters got to go to fancy events while she didn't, etc. In that case, she's not particularly doing any chores. It seems to me that with that change, the story would not be fundamentally different.

It's an interesting thought experiment. There have been uncountable versions of Cinderella around the world, probably some of which have originated independently. It really is a foundational story type. Perhaps there are versions like the one you suggest where Cinderella is mistreated but doesn't distinguish herself in how she reacts to that. And sure the story would still work as there'd be satisfaction in seeing someone who's been treated unfairly winning the lottery, husband and wealth wise. But it's gonna work best if we think she's a good person who bears her misfortune with patience and is kind to small animals. And if we think she's a bad person, who joins her ugly sisters in mistreating others and would happily join their ranks, the story is hardly going to work at all.

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