site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15869 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.

Dating is a matching market. Matching markets just tend to be hellscapes, and the larger they get the worse they get. But that's not the only problem. The change in balance in power is part of it. I just saw a thread on twitter where a man was derided because he said he want on something like 30 dates and they all went the same way: he took the girl out for dinner, they went for a walk, and he waited for them to initiate physical contact because he didn't want to be #metoo'd. Only 2 did (which is higher than I'd expect). You can claim this is merely paranoia on his part, but that requires putting your head in the sand.

Matching markets just tend to be hellscapes, and the larger they get the worse they get.

Problem is they shouldn't 'have' to be this large. I keep noticing that the dating apps are simply unable to produce for me a match inside a 30 mile radius... but still spit out the occasional attractive-seeming match at like 90+ miles away.

But why, why in the hell should I have to search out to 90 miles when I haven't actually exhausted the options inside 30? It makes no damn sense. There's someone making these sorts of decisions on how 'large' to make the market and I think it is pretty clear their incentives are misaligned with the actual market participants.

The way the apps work, this has to be intentionally engineered outcome, and thus it could also be engineered out. This won't save us by itself, but its just one of many steps that could be taken to mitigate the problems.

Speaking of initiating physical contact, I've noticed that now even when women are into me, they have no concept of reciprocating physical contact. It's the equivalent of going starfish. I get more reciprocal affection from petting a cat.

It wasn't always this way, I remember when they'd lean in or give me a hip-bump or something. Now it's all recieve, no give.

Been noticing something similar. I have had to reach over and literally drag a woman's leg over to lay across mine when we're sitting on a bench or couch together at times. They seem quite happy that I do this, but holy hell the ol' "rub your foot gently along his leg" trick doesn't seem to be commonly taught anymore.

From a certain perspective and to a certain limited extent, this is just things working as intended. The men who are stupid enough or paranoid enough to allow themselves to be totally stymied by the propaganda (i.e. undesirable men) will weed themselves out of the dating pool, leaving only the men who are savvy enough to actually navigate complex and adversarial social dynamics (i.e. more desirable men).

Yeah except there's readily available news stories, RIGHT NOW, about 'more desireable men' getting blasted with rape accusations YEARS after the act despite evidence on the ground showing it appeared fully consensual at the time.

So you are in fact showing that these men are not 'savvy' they just get what they want right up until one of their past conquests gets uppity enough to pull the trigger she had available all along.

You can't "navigate complex and adversarial social dynamics" when the actual dynamics can be unilaterally changed by one party a long time after the fact.

That dog won't hunt, even 'desirable' men can rationally opt out of that.

The propaganda, however, is true. And the men who can make it through are scarce and often not high quality. It is true that a common female strategy is to put up an apparent brickwall filter -- that is, a filter that no one passes -- and accept only men who ignore her objections. However, that strategy only works when it's possible for decent men to do so. Current culture does not.

It has been long Noticed that, while it may or may not be coordinated or intentional as such, feminism often functions as a civilizational shit-test for men.

He deserves the derision for taking chicks on first date dinner dates.

he waited for them to initiate physical contact

Hoping for courage and initiative from young women is a great way to never get laid.

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