site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   31250 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why are men and women all leaving these gains on the table to be monopolised by men?

Basically this. I presume Randall would be a bit uncomfortable about his argument being used in the context of gender politics, but it's exactly as applicable (likewise certain varieties of the "female underrepresentation in STEM is caused by misogyny" argument, as I noted here).

Because men are oppressing women? How is that possible if men and women are equally matched? They should be able to overpower men the same way they have been overpowered by men, or at least fight to a draw.

Not only is there nothing remotely feminist about the preposterous idea that women are just as strong as men, if such an idea were true, it would obviate feminism as a political movement. After all, the only reason feminism exists is in recognition of the fact that women, by virtue of their relative physical weakness, need protection from violent and rapacious men. But if women were just as strong as men, an appropriate response to women complaining about male violence and oppression would be "sounds like a you problem. Git gud."

But if women were just as strong as men, an appropriate response to women complaining about male violence and oppression would be "sounds like a you problem. Git gud."

I don't think that would be an appropriate response. If that's an appropriate response, then it's also appropriate to tell a man who gets punched by another man in the street that he should just git gud. But part of the whole point of society is that we are supposed to have a dedicated force that prevents people from physically assaulting each other, instead of every single man having to be a martial artist or having to find some kind of mafia to defend him.

If that's an appropriate response, then it's also appropriate to tell a man who gets punched by another man in the street that he should just git gud.

I'm not talking about individual men and women. I'm talking about how society is organised. Much of our modern society only makes sense when you understand that there is a broad societal-wide recognition of the fact that women, as a class, are systematically weaker and more fragile than men, and as a result extra resources must be invested into protecting them. There are hundreds if not thousands of NGOs dedicated to combatting "violence against women"; the idea of founding an NGO dedicated to combatting "violence against men" (without qualification) would have caused people to look at you like you'd two heads until maybe five minutes ago. (This is not me making an MRA argument.)

Not only is there nothing remotely feminist about the preposterous idea that women are just as strong as men

If you believe women are as strong as men, that means that any treatment of men and women that differs based on strength really differs based on discrimination. Belief in widespread discrimination is a feminist position.

Because men are oppressing women? How is that possible if men and women are equally matched? They should be able to overpower men the same way they have been overpowered by men, or at least fight to a draw.

Not only is there nothing remotely feminist about the preposterous idea that women are just as strong as men, if such an idea were true, it would obviate feminism as a political movement. After all, the only reason feminism exists is in recognition of the fact that women, by virtue of their relative physical weakness, need protection from violent and rapacious men. But if women were just as strong as men, an appropriate response to women complaining about male violence and oppression would be "sounds like a you problem. Git gud."

This is easily resolved by feminists tacking on an epicycle or two.

  1. Women are just as strong and capable as men, but men with their shittiness, toxicity, and misogyny are more wont to oppress women than vice versa, and old boys’ clubs entrench and insitutionalize this oppression.
  2. Women are just as strong and capable as men, but if they aren’t it’s only due to socialization and internalized misogyny from the oppessive effects of the patriarchy.

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