site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   31975 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 10, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t see why the default for promiscuity should be to forbid it rather than allow it.

Because it destabilizes any society in which it takes root.

Male violence is centered on three things; money (or money producing commodities; drugs), social esteem (or "respect"), and intimate partner exclusivity. This is as close to an iron law of humanity as possible. Men kill other men for the first two reasons and men kill other men and women because of the last reason.

We've advanced enough that killing for "respect" is penalized with swift and uncompromising punishment. You shot some guy because he called you out? That's a life sentence, pal. We don't, however, criminalize the proximate cause - you can talk shit about anyone pretty much to an unlimited extent (libel and slander notwithstanding) and there are zero legal repercussions (although perhaps there are social ones. More on this later).

The money/drugs questions is an interesting goldilocks situation. We criminalize murdering someone over money/drugs/assets/commodities. We criminalize the unlawful attainment of those things (theft) and in many cases (though less and less) we criminalize the mere possession of drugs. This is because drugs are still recognized as inherently high risk (if not outright dangerous) - especially when put in the context of male on male violence. Nobody should kill you over money and drugs, but if you did some crook shit to get them, you're still doing crook shit and can face consequences.

Now, promiscuity or intimate partner exclusivity. You can't kill your wife or girlfriend because she cheated on you. And, mostly, we don't think adultery should be criminalized. Up until the mid 20th century, however, adultery was harshly socially punished (I'm thinking of something beginning with a big Red Letter - "A"). As an interesting side note, adultery was and is still an offense in the United States Military. They don't give you 10 lashes or throw you in the brig, but it fucks up your career. That's interesting to me.

Only in this last case, promiscuity, have we seen a full scale social revolt on the social penalties brought on by the action. Are you selling drugs? Probably shouldn't do that. Did you steal a car and sell it to a chop shop? Bad. Did you start talking shit about Big Jim down at the pool hall? Better watch your mouth, son.

Oh, you slept with the nanny, or you slept with the pool boy? No one should deny or criticize your sexual self-expression and autonomy! Of course one can rationalize that argument into an isolated issue; a person's private sexual conduct with a consenting partner is no one else's business. But in a social context, it gets murky fast. Adultery ought not be criminalized (and, on the other side of the coin, both divorce and marriage ought not have any financial incentive tied to them), but rampant promiscuity and adultery still ought to face social consequences because that simply means the society in which they occur is aware of the high stakes of promiscuity / adultery's likely outcomes.

The 30,000 foot question this rolls back up into is; do members of a society have duties and responsibilities outside of themselves to that society that are not codified in law? Or, do we race to the bottom and leave it at "as long as you don't break any laws, you're fine."

As an interesting side note, adultery was and is still an offense in the United States Military. They don't give you 10 lashes or throw you in the brig, but it fucks up your career. That's interesting to me.

Does this always apply when the adulterer is in service in the US armed forces, or only when the spouse is as well?

You can't kill your wife or girlfriend because she cheated on you.

I'd add that, in certain circumstances and in certain jurisdictions, it was technically not penalized until the '70s or so.

[Standard traditionalist (men have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-progressive (women have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-liberal (space aliens who don't associate morality and sexuality as much) framing applies beyond this point.]

Because it destabilizes any society in which it takes root.

Which ones, and what are the symptoms of that destabilization? Be specific as to how people fucking is the first step in the causal chain. The 1960s US seemed pretty stable to me besides the tons of bombs being dropped in mailboxes and on Vietnam and the occasional race riot, and I don't think those things were due to a lack of specifically-virgin pussy.

And while "I can't believe there's so much non-virgin pussy, what the fuck, these women are just giving it away seemingly at random" is a typical radicalization story stated by at least one Islamic terrorist, it seems absurd to blame that reaction on the liberals.

we criminalize the mere possession of drugs. This is because

of a bunch of reasons; what's it to you if I shoot up in the privacy of my own home? No, you criminalize the possession of drugs because it's a combination of being low-class with very little (or negative) perceived socioeconomic value compared to their perceived sociopolitical risks (a trait the other possession crimes- guns and explosives, certain types of pornography, etc. also tend to share).

you slept with the nanny, or you slept with the pool boy? No one should deny or criticize your sexual self-expression and autonomy!

Where does your brain go, that you would assume my outgroup isn't also selfish bastards?
You're forgetting that this is a destructive thing to do even in a sexually liberal culture, not because sex is uniquely bad on its face (and sexual liberals do indeed reject that notion) but because, most of the time, it's violating an explicit agreement not to do that. The problem is not with the sex, though it is made worse by it- the "but it's not a big deal, sex = free, why is my husband leaving me" is a rationalization/excuse after the fact. This is also why it makes sense for a career where people live and die on the fact they can trust you not to be doing stupid bullshit like this to sanction it, especially one where you find a lot of traditionalists.

the high stakes of promiscuity / adultery's likely outcomes

The ultimate problem for traditionalist-progressives is that what their instincts tell them about sex (and the impact and seriousness thereof) and what the actual truth is (that if you're not a fucking retard you're not going to get pregnant or an STD beyond herpes- and while herpes is a big deal, it's nothing compared to the million dollars a bastard child costs) no longer match.

This is why the feeling that there should be more social stakes (and indeed, why they're created artificially by progressives filling a power vacuum left by a liberal withdrawl/die-off) is a unique vulnerability. But the reverse of female-privileging selfishness is not male-privileging selfishness (and vice versa).

do members of a society have duties and responsibilities outside of themselves to that society that are not codified in law?

Trivially, but good luck making society reward those duties and responsibilities with the corresponding rights and privileges.

not because sex is uniquely bad on its face (and sexual liberals do indeed reject that notion) but because, most of the time, it's violating an explicit agreement not to do that.

And that agreement is made because bad to do the things that violate it. Theres a difference between following liberal rules, and believing in liberalism - much like with secularism.

I had a very difficult time following your writing and was unable to understand your arguments (or agreements?) with my post.

Could you perhaps try an abridged version with a simpler structure?

Because it destabilizes any society in which it takes root.

The problem with assertion such as these is that modern society is really its own extraordinary thing. From his food to his health to his habits to his reproduction, man is unlike other animals, and modern man is unlike other men.

Male violence is centered on three things; money (or money producing commodities; drugs), social esteem (or "respect"), and intimate partner exclusivity.

Is this an established theory, or did you come up with that yourself? Either way, my objections are:

  • assumes some rational reason for violence, when there are better ways to get money, respect, intimate partners. In modern society, the only people using interpersonal violence have low self control.

  • It’s missing raw hatred of the other guy as motivation

  • those are valid reasons for female killers as well

Adultery ought not be criminalized (and, on the other side of the coin, both divorce and marriage ought not have any financial incentive tied to them), but rampant promiscuity and adultery still ought to face social consequences because that simply means the society in which they occur is aware of the high stakes of promiscuity / adultery's likely outcomes.

This position of ‘no criminal, only social repercussions’, looks like an incoherent compromise to me. You don’t have the heart to beat your daughter and flog her suitors, so you unload the burden of your repressive sexual project onto society. The passive voice will do your dirty work, shunning perhaps. It’s like the woke saying ‘freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences’ – who will administer the consequences, exactly? If it’s you, and it surely won’t be me, then it’s not society.

I would, and have, called out both men and women to their face on issues of promiscuity. I don't mean passive aggressive quips. "What you are doing, I find disgusting and degrading." - "Random sex with a silly girl you met at a bar last night makes you look desperate and weak." This has resulted in the termination of friendships and, in one case, a received threat of violence.

I appreciate your quick resort to hypothetical child abuse and felonious assault, but I don't think any of what I wrote can be construed as me flinging a burden of mine onto society.

Thank you for calling it a repressive sexual project. That is exactly what it is. Sexual gluttony should be viewed the same way gastronomic gluttony is viewed; with a recoiling disgust. I will add, as this was not clear in the original post, that I am equally against male promiscuity. The Andrew Tate's of the world that try to perform the mental gymnastics to square the double standard of "men can sleep around, woman cannot" not only fail in that task, but end up revealing their own lack of self-control, lack of adherence to higher principles and virtues, and high likelihood of defecting from a male group for their own selfish reasons. By their fruits. I am glad they are so open about it.

The Tate thesis, insofar as there is such a thing, is that its perfectly fine for you to know who he is, because he doesnt need your cooperation. Weve created a society where he can be rich just fine without being trustworthy. Hence also the islam thing - whether he personally would or could change his tune in a more traditional society remains in question of course, but he may well die before it comes to that.

The problem with assertion[s] such as these is that modern society is really its own extraordinary thing. From his food to his health to his habits to his reproduction, man is unlike other animals, and modern man is unlike other men.

"All philosophy written before the Industrial Revolution is best forgotten." --Justin B. Rye

The passive voice will do your dirty work, shunning perhaps. It’s like the woke saying ‘freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences’ – who will administer the consequences, exactly?

Moldbug's poltergeists?

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