site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16819 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 26, 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.

There'd be little pushback if you wanted to pass a law that made it legal for women to unilaterally kick their husbands out of the house for alleged abuse, but specifically banned men from doing the same.

Really? I think there would be considerable pushback against a law that is that explicit about stating that female abuse doesn't happen and that only men can be abusers. I realize there is a sizeable contingent of feminist legal theorists who functionally believe this, but I doubt your hypothetical law passes anywhere in the U.S. At most, they try to write the definition of "abuse" in such a way that it's much more difficult to accuse a woman of it, and even that would be tough.

You can make a reasonable case that this is already de facto the law in most of the US (and the UK, and presumably most of western Europe) because of the way police and courts enforce facially gender-netural laws. If cops and judges who deal with domestic violence are exclusively trained in the feminist Duluth Model then the law as enforced will reflect that.

Duluth Model

A wikipedia article that, as far as I can tell at a skim, does not actually explain the model itself.

Edit: This is more direct: Anti-Femicide laws. Not exactly making it lawful for women to abuse men, but instead imposing extra penalties if the man is the abuser and the woman the abused. With a sufficient rebalancing of penalties between the gender neutral law, and the "bonus" punishment for Male on Female crime, your exact scenario could come true. Anti-femicide laws are not merely something on the feminist wishlist, but exist on the books in several countries.

Ours is an age of menstrual breaks, of hygiene products being tax exempt, if they are only used by the fairer sex. Men do not think they will find themself in a situation where a woman might abuse them, as they generally do not view women as a threat in a sense that current laws ban.

Here subsequent radicalizations of feminism play contradictory roles: if men and women are equal, a man abusing a woman, and a woman abusing a man are both likely scenarios, and the possibility of the latter one is what feminism at that stage paid lipservice to and went against the traditional grain. More extreme feminism that emerged later, that men can't be victims, can be viewed as a return to a previous value system, but when promulgated in a society that now treats women as legally no inferior to men, clearly reduce equality.

I think there would be considerable pushback against a law that is that explicit about stating that female abuse doesn't happen and that only men can be abusers.

How many male jurors pushed back against the Clancy verdict?

I don't think there would be any pushback; I think men would actively welcome this.

I am increasingly disappointed how often argumentation (really just kneejerk snap responses) here resembles the same level of reflection and analysis found on /r/news. Much has been written in the "State of the Motte" thread that has already been said, including the pros and cons of moving off reddit, but the worst of it is this kind of "Durkahurk somethingsomething-current-news-cycle NUh-uuuuuHHHHHHHH!" response. These have largely replaced long effortposts when people would at least bother to pretend the capability to consider the thoughts being thought by people who are not them. To be clear, the latter still exist, but I think it's not a coincidence that the signal-to-noise ratio keeps going down, while some people persist in complaining that we put too much value on "moar words."

I don't have an archive link handy, but IIRC, it has been shown that the average comment back in the slatestarcodex containment thread days was considerably worse than today.

Not that we can't strive to be better.

If you need me to bring further receipts for the claim, I can take the time to do that; I feel as if I've been running a little hotter in that respect than usual lately.

However, as far as "no pushback against law that states female abuse doesn't happen", this one is honestly pretty clear. So's the "male statutory rape victim forced to pay child support" one. So was the UK rape law that, for quite some time, was written so that only men could even be guilty of the crime (it requires anatomy women do not possess). Canada, too- "we'll change the law so men accused of rape can't as easily gather evidence of the women collaborating to frame the guy" actually happened, again with zero pushback.

I think men are obsessed with Protecting Women; I think women are happy to say "thank you very much" and pocket the resulting political power differential while at best simply looking the other way when women abuse men (from women's perspective). The female jurors are, as I recall from previous threads on the subject, literally on record stating that Protect Women is why they voted that way.

These have largely replaced long effortposts when people would at least bother to pretend the capability to consider the thoughts being thought by people who are not them.

I've tried, I just get downvoted without engagement. And yes, I'm frustrated by the fact nobody wants to bother to ask then, what's in your head?; it is present here, it is present there, it is present everywhere.

(Perhaps the men and women getting married are doing so simply because they are, on average, the only human beings on the planet capable of asking at least their life partner that question merely at a higher than average base rate. Education predicts that much, at least.)

Okay, bring receipts for the claim that there would be no pushback to a law the explicitly allows a woman to kick a man out of a shared household for abuse, but does not allow a man to kick a woman out of a shared household for abuse. A law literally written that way, with language that makes it black and white that it only applies in one direction.

"Lindsey Clancy" and "Child support laws" are not receipts.

In the UK I believe this would be true, but in the US we like our de jure equality.

There was no Clancy verdict. One of three men, and none of the nine women, objected to the otherwise-unanimous vote of not guilty by reason of insanity.

So 66% of men, n = 3, agree that female abuse is literally beyond their ability to comprehend.

(And the 33% was of a particular demographic whose women are stereotypically maximally hostile to men.)

No, 11 of twelve jurors voted that she was too crazy to go to a women’s medical prison, and should instead be held in the state’s long term women’s mental hospital against her will. There is likely no actual difference between the two facilities, and it seems worth noting that everyone agrees she is actually crazy.

No. 2 men out of 3 in a jury of 12 were convinced to say that there was at least reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was legally sane when she murdered her kids. While I disagree with these men (and the 9 women), this is not such an obvious thing as to be equivalent to "female abuse is literally beyond their ability to comprehend"

I think the common argument for Clancy supporters was that she must be insane; how else can you explain what she did?

The common argument among Clancy supporters is 'Astrology says her husband did it'.

The fact that she was crazy seems well established; her mental health issues predate the murders. I have no difficulty believing that 11/12 jurors held that was enough to rule that she was not guilty for reason of insanity.

My tongue's partially in my cheek because... that's approximately how the law works (in Florida!) already.

A husband is ALLOWED to seek a domestic violence injunction but far and away in my experience its the wives/girlfriends getting them. In Miami-Dade County its about 73% women filing for them. In terms of who gets them granted its 80+% women.

And the effect of getting/filing an injunction is that the other person can't come near the 'alleged victim' which means... they have to leave the house, and can't even talk to the alleged victim.

So this isn't quite the exact law I'm talking about... but nobody seems to question the one we have on the books, as applied.

Okay, sure, but I'm very intentionally questioning the assertion you actually made, that no one would push back on a de jure law that only applies in one direction. That it de facto heavily benefits one sex over the other isn't surprising, but, you know, 27% of filings and 20% granted being men is a minority, but it's not nothing, or even statistically insignificant.

And, courts unfair to men women never held responsible yadda yadda whatever, but men are more often the ones being removed for physical abuse? I am shocked. To the degree these court orders are weaponized (a push or a slap becomes "threatened my life"), I would be very surprised if men aren't doing that just as often.

Can you point out any previous serious pushback against laws that explicitly favor women/protections for women?

We have the abortion situation, but voters tend to approve broader abortion rights, when asked. Its like, there is just no actual organized 'resistance' to a law that is couched as pro-female!

I think if you simply couched it as "protecting women from becoming unhoused by abusive partners exploiting the courts" you could turn it into a 60-40 in favor issue, at least.

Would YOU vote against that?

Can you point out any previous serious pushback against laws that explicitly favor women/protections for women?

No. But I can't recall any recent laws that made a black-and-white distinction like what you are hypothesizing. If you can show me a law (in the US) that literally says, for example, "Abuse is defined as a male hitting a female," or something like that, I will reassess my opinion.

Would YOU vote against that?

Would I vote against a law that explicitly defines abuse in such a way that men hitting women is abuse and women hitting men is not? Yes, I would.

What would you tell the female voters who accuse you of misogyny for favoring the ability of abusive men to kick women out of the house?

Anyway, I admit to laying a bit of a trap because its been red states passing laws aimed at protecting female rights, Which do try to draw a very direct black and white gender distinction.

Because of trans issues, you see.

Kansas passed something called, LITERALLY, "The Women's Bill of Rights" OVER THE GOVERNOR'S VETO.

https://womensliberationfront.org/news/victory-womens-bill-of-rights-passes-in-kansas-with-bipartisan-support

Mississipi's was called the“Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly Act”

https://magnoliatribune.com/2024/05/13/legislation-signed-into-law-defining-sexes-protecting-single-sex-spaces-for-women/

Alabama called theirs The “What Is a Woman?” Act.

https://natlawreview.com/article/what-woman-alabama-governor-signs-bill-declaring-there-are-only-two-sexes

Its kind of funny that news stories tend to specify these laws as protecting 'women' even though, admittedly, they are textually reciprocal. For some reason the legislators title them explicitly around the female interests that are invoked.

So yeah. Its pretty obvious to me that any time you can couch a policy change as "protecting the girls" you can get a huge amount of normie support for it.

What would you tell the female voters who accuse you of misogyny for favoring the ability of abusive men to kick women out of the house?

I'm not a politician, so I am not concerned about that.

For someone who's the #3 He-man Woman-Hater on the Motte, I really don't understand your cringing attitude towards the prospect of female disapproval. I get that it's harder when you're out there in the dating market, and I won't lie, I am glad not to be there, but still.

Anyway, I admit to laying a bit of a trap because its been red states passing laws aimed at protecting female rights, Which do try to draw a very direct black and white gender distinction.

Yes, I figured that, but as I expected, they aren't actually what I asked for. And even by your own admission, they are actually "textually reciprocal" (i.e., de jure they apply both ways, even if it is pretty obvious that no one is worried about trans men being excluded from men's spaces). So... you gave me oranges and said "Look at them unfair apples! Gotcha!" Uh, right.

I'm not even convinced "normies" buy the "protecting girls" framework here. To the degree leftists are in favor of trans rights bills, they see trans women as an oppressed underclass, but I am deeply skeptical as to how many really and truly perceive them as "girls," in the way that provokes the male protective instinct you are so despairing 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