site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   33127 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 9, 2024

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.

I'd rather pick one up on the safe side of the divide than marry a girl right out of college without knowing that this nubile cutie has a ticking time bomb hidden away, that all of the sudden she's going to bloat out into something grotesque, like an self-inflating raft from which the pin has been yanked.

You’ve just described 80% of “thicc Latinas”. The natural life cycle of a Mexican woman is to turn into a potato after having her first child and to stay like that for the rest of her life.

There are notable exceptions.

Salma Hayek’s ancestry appears to include no indigenous/Amerindian genetics, which is probably the reason why she has defied the Mexican curse.

Salma Hayek has Lebanese descent too, which has Arab thighmelt potential. I'll invite other brave souls to share any observations on cellulite/body fat distribution differentiation between races, since my casual observance maps too cleanly onto racialised beauty meta for me to suspect subconscious bias.

In any case, to see what a girl will look like in future just do a cute activity like compare family photos and look at the elders. Thats the easiest way to see the genetic destiny. An excess of surgery and vanity in said photos might allow a discerning individual to parse wealth outcomes too, so there is further useful info to be gleaned there.

It’s hardly new advice to take a good, hard look at your mother-in-law, since that’s what your wife will look like in 30 years. Physical appearance isn’t everything in a relationship, but it isn’t nothing either.

To defend @2D3D’s approach from the perspective of someone who does strongly value interpersonal compatibility and love, the point he’s making is that you need to consider: Will I still love this person in 25 years? If we’re going to get married, I should at least consider whether, down the line, she is going to look so radically different from how she looks now that the things about her that attracted me in an erotic/sexual sense - the things that made me want to make her my romantic partner instead of just a female friend/acquaintance - will have disappeared. Is it fair to her to put her in a position where your marriage could fall apart because you start having to fake attraction, and she begins to hate herself? I don’t know if these questions should be disqualifying, but it’s tough to say that they’re not worth considering.

(There are, of course, other perfectly salutary reasons to care about these matters, but I don’t think they’re incompatible with an approach that still centers interpersonal love.)

I actually did this 'family photo' thing to figure out the girls family dynamic and understand what her relationship modalities are. Physical commonalities among the elder generations gave a preview of what the likely attractiveness would be going forward, but I myself underprioritized that because matchstick leg + pot belly chinatown uncle is my own fate so I know my place.

Don't skip leg day, then.

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