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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I am a big believer in the idea of revealed preferences—which is fancy econspeak for “Watch what people do, not what they say.”
I also used to be a lurker in various manosphere-adjacent internet subcultures. I just couldn’t help myself: the combination of surprisingly erudite references to Ancient Greek philosophy & evolutionary psychology mixed with highschool-lockerroom levels of pent-up sexual frustration made for some quality threads. And the one thing the manosphere loved to do—above all else—was complain about Western women: how third-wave feminism ruined them, how modern women are masculinized, hypergamous, promiscuous, etc. etc.
Despite all of the complaining, I couldn’t help but notice that the men of the manosphere were devoting the best years of their lives to analyzing how to sleep with the exact people they claimed to despise. They would create Excel spreadsheets for every date that they went on so they could track whether getting the Rocky Road flavor instead of the chocolate correlated with getting to third base at the end of the night. They would write multi-thousand-word “field reports”, detailing in excruciating and anthropological detail, the outcome of their most recent seduction attempt. They would pick up new hobbies, change jobs, buy new clothes—all to get laid.
So on the one hand: their explicit beliefs were that Western women are the worse. But their revealed preferences were that the validation of Western women is the single most important and valuable thing in the world.
Granted, even back then, there were a couple oddballs who would advocate for foreign women, praising their femininity and their “obedience”. There would be a thread like “Struggling with date-closing a flaky HB-9” and a foreign-bro—serene and graceful among the herd of sexually-frustrated chumps—would talk about how stress-free their life was with their Thai wife who cooks and cleans and knows not to talk too much when the Redzone is on. But these men seemed to be a minority. Most of the men of the manosphere were young urban professionals trying to win the affections of their young urban co-eds.
And when I looked at the young couples I knew in real life, most were of similar social class, intelligence, and broad cultural background. They had met in college or on OKCupid or through a friend of a friend. There certainly didn’t seem to be an abundance of men booking roundtrip flights to Caracas to seduce the Latina minx of their dreams.
Maybe all of that talk about “third-wave feminism” was overblown?
But in the past year or so, I’ve been seeing threads pop up on reddit about “passport bros”. A passport bro is a man from a first-world country who goes abroad to look for women, believing foreign women to be more traditional and conservative. It even has a page on Know Your Meme.
Suddenly, the old manosphere advice had become a Discourse-worthy phenomenon.
A lot can be said about the rise of the passport bro: how it's yet another indicator of the decay of our social values, how it represents the arbitraging of sexual market value differentials between Western men and their third-world counterparts, even how passport bros are not something entirely new, going by other names like 'sex tourists' in the past.
But I want to focus on one particular element that has caught my attention: how black the phenomenon of the passport bro is.
An important aspect of the passport bro movement is that not only do they praise foreign women, they dump heavily on black women. From black-manosphere.org:
Before researching for this post, I wasn’t even aware that the Black Manosphere was a thing. Like most Very Online people, if you asked me to draw a caricatured sketch of a denizen of the manosphere, he would invariably be white: perhaps of a Charlottesville, vaguely-Appalachian phenotype. For one, the text-based internet just feels white. Another reason is that the manosphere is closely associated with other rightwing internet subcultures where white nationalism is frequently celebrated by way of dank anuran memes. The surprising diversity of the Internet Right continues.
I’m not interested in wading into the debate about whether or not the passport bros are justified in their behavior. There are many threads about passport bros and all of the arguments are the same. Detractors of passport bros accuse them of being predatory incels who will get scammed out of a green card. Supporters of passport bros call them heroes who are brave for fighting the Leviathan that is third-wave feminism. (The internet is so tiring sometimes.)
But unfortunately, we can’t just ignore the passport bros either. The story of the last sixty years of America is that if you want a glimpse of the future of White America, there is no better place to look than Black America. Starting in the 60s, there were a set of broad changes—both legally and culturally—in American gender relations that are lumped under the umbrella of “second-wave feminism”. As Arctotherium explained in “The Baby Boom”:
These changes hit Black America first and hardest. Black people, whose natural inclinations are adverse to lifelong monogamy, quickly devolved back into their ancestral mating patterns when released from the straitjacket of traditional Christian morality. White people, being more “genetically monogamous”, didn’t react immediately to the change in incentive structure. But fastforward to the present and marriage is increasingly less common among the lower classes, now being reserved for upper-middle and upper class families who have the foresight, the ability to delay gratification, and the cultural upbringing to know the importance of raising children in a traditional nuclear family.
It’s interesting that passport bros tend to be black because, theoretically, black men should have an advantage in the dating market. Black men, due to higher muscularity, higher extroversion, and other “traits”, are viewed as the most masculine of the races. This bears out in interracial dating statistics where BMWF couples (excuse the porn-inspired abbreviation—it’s just efficient and I don’t feel like reinventing the wheel here) are well over-represented compared to WMBF couples who are under-represented. And this is not even accounting for the fact that if, instead of looking at stable couples, you look at people’s most recent sexual encounter, the disparity grows even further.
It will be interesting to see if this trend spreads to White America or if it stays confined to Tiktok and Black Twitter.
I recall a far-right talking point 'black on white rape 20,000, white on black rape 0'.
This link goes into detail on that and provides a fair few charts that show black women are generally considered unattractive: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/02/white-on-black-vs-black-on-white-rape-statistics/
Personally I don't know why we'd need charts to show that black women are unattractive but they're there! The OkCupid and reply rate data is pretty clear, if gut instinct wasn't enough.
Kierkegaard also argues that black women who date white men are smarter than white women who date black men, which also makes sense. https://twitter.com/wayotworld/status/1789038821981495741/photo/1
Yes, Kierkegaard mentions that asterisk and notes that it doesn't significantly change the conclusions one should draw. It's rather hard to get a high sample size for white on black rape if it doesn't exist.
I think you meant rape is largely intraracial, which it is.
More options
Context Copy link
You up the ante in attacking white women in trying to censor negative criticism of black women. You should stop acting as if you are a mod for a reddit sub and trying to enforce left wing ideology on everyone. Unattractive is not equivalent to calling a group disgustingly fat which is more inflammatory. Plus, I won't interpret you choosing that rhetoric as just being a case of providing an example. It seems to me that you are deliberately want to get away with calling white women as disgustingly fat.
It is actually the case that white women are more attractive than black women. Less obese too. So it can't be applied to white women which aren't seen as unattractive.
Black women tend to be rated as less attractive than others.
Practice what you preach. You report anyone who expresses a left-wing opinion you disagree with. People making arguments you don't like are not "enforcing ideology," they are making arguments you don't like. Stop publicly attacking people for making arguments you don't like. Attack the arguments, not the person.
Opinions about who is more attractive, especially when dropped as flaming bombs on your outgroup for CW purposes, are not objective statements of fact but statements about preferences (in this case, yours). "Black women tend to be rated as less attractive than others." while somewhat weak and vague, is fine as an assertion - "It is actually the case that" is not.
You've been told repeatedly to dial down your personal antagonism, and you seem unable to engage with anyone who holds an opinion that outrages you (which seems to be essentially any opinion you don't agree with) without turning vitriolic.
It's been a few months since your last ban, but I have noticed you ramping up the bad behavior again recently, so take three days to cool off and decide if you can/are willing to engage with other people here like a grown adult.
Reports arent anonymous?
You have to expand a box to see them, but no.
The volunteer janitorial system is completely anonymous, though. For that we just get a final score.
More options
Context Copy link
IDK if they are, but this user has a very distinctivewriting style. Of course, report text has to stay short, and his style becomes apparent after a paragraph or 5, so it's not the strongest alternative hypothesis...
More options
Context Copy link
I think it makes sense, if we want to avoid report abuse, that people should be willing to stand behind their reports (at least to the mods, I doubt posting everyone's reports on a public bulletin would be productive). I'm not sure what benefit full anonymity would have, since there's not really a mechanism for punishing "whistleblowers" or dissenters beyond, I guess, mods secretly banning people for reporting the "wrong" kind of posts. But the ban process here is already extremely transparent, so that doesn't seem like a big concern to me. I can't think of any reason why I would care whether the mods can see who/what I'm reporting.
I absolutely despise "if you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about" arguments, though, so I'm more than happy to be convinced otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
Why should they be?
Should your voting record be public too?
Admins on the motte can see who up/downvoted a thing.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. I don't really care about net votes, but I do care about the opinion of particular people. I used to be on a forum with public upvotes, I think it was pretty cool.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think they're anonymous on Reddit. It's also a little surprising that reports are not anonymous when upvotes and downvotes are.
I have no opinion on whether anonymity of reports is desirable.
Upvotes and downvotes can't be anonymous to admins, because the software has to be able to query them to highlight them for a user when serving a page. If a non-admin mod can't see votes without an admin's help, or if an admin can only see them via some low-level database tool rather than a friendly UI, that's not unimportant, but neither would I call it anonymity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't monogamy a modern concept anyway? Only 40% of males passed on their genes compared to 80% of females, (whether due to hypergamy, rape, men dying in wars/battles etc.) therefore monogamy must not have been as prevalent in our ancestors. And some analysis of DNA suggests 8000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every 1 man.
One could point to the Scandinavian Vikings that went around raping women across Europe (or any other conquering European force), or harems in the courts of kings and lords, or the sexually promiscuous times of the Romans and Greeks. I'm pretty sure it was also common even in married couples for there to be extramarital affairs (look at how many prostitutes existed in the Victorian era). Monogamy bundled together with the concept of love is extremely modern, most marriages were understood to be financial and social, not strictly based on love.
However, I'd argue monogamy has been a significant factor attributing to the success of civilization and the progress of humanity. There's no shortage of evidence supporting the notion that children grow up better in two-parent households, and it creates more stable societies too. A married man will work harder to support his family, which means he will pay more taxes and less likely to commit crimes and engage in things like protests. You don't want a large population of unmarried men sitting around, and historically the problem this posed was likely solved by sending them off to war.
In a century the scientists will wonder why it suddenly jumped to 170 to 1 during the previous few decades, and will conclude that it was because of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don’t worry, the mods have decided that’s not a controversial claim, otherwise they’d have issued a warning for not proactively providing evidence.
It was quite the statement to throw out there, but it's true. If black people's natural inclination was towards monogamy, you would see monogamy be the dominant mode of relationship in African countries. Or if you want to argue colonialism is responsible for Africa's current state, there would be large reservoirs of archeological evidence showing monogamy in pre-modern African societies. But we don't see that.
I would argue where my statement was misleading is that monogamy isn't natural for any race. But still, there are degrees: it's easier for whites and Asians than it is for black people.
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn’t appear to be in the queue, at least.
Please don’t speak for us.
Since you now know this comment exists and haven't modded it... it seems like my comment was accurate?
I'm mentally unhealthy enough that I've tracked my reports and gone back to see if mods actually did anything, and I've concluded my reports just waste moderator time.
I’m still going to say “no.”
Users are allowed to be wrong. That includes misjudging whether something is obvious or controversial. Tolerance for this kind of error depends on the perceived good faith of the user. Since the OP has stuck around to argue his controversial points, he’s earned some benefit of the doubt.
If I’d caught this early, perhaps I’d have issued a warning. But I didn’t, and the rest of the community has already pushed back. Mission accomplished.
You replied to my comment less than 24 hours after the top level comment was made, so I’m skeptical “we caught it too late” is a genuine factor here.
Moreover, OP had not defended the claim at the time, but if that plays a role, maybe “be willing to defend your controversial claims if somebody asks for it” would be a more accurate articulation of the way this rule is actually enforced?
As it stands, if you mod him before 24 hours he never has the chance to defend himself, if you mod him after 24 hours then it’s too late.
That’s actually close to a phrasing we’ve considered. Our dear departed @ymeskhout was interested in some sort of formal challenge system—see a ridiculous, unsupported claim? Demand a defense. He was particularly frustrated with (what he saw as) isolated demands for rigor.
Anyway. There’s no time limit. The faster a controversial claim is defended, the better.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think replying "That seems like a pretty controversial claim, do you have any evidence to back it up, my evidence for it not being true is so-and-so".
The (I guess) inflammatory statement was part of the top level post, which to me seems like a clear example of an effort-post. If the post was just this one statement, I think our mods would likely have asked the submitter to put more effort in by proactively providing evidence. But if one cancels every lengthy post which contains some claim which might be controversial and is not backed by evidence then there will be very few posts left.
I'm not asking to cancel every length post. A mod saying
Is completely fine.
Removing the rule is also fine.
Changing the rule to allow unsupported controversial claims in effort posts is also fine.
But don't write rules that sound lovely, but which you're not willing to enforce.
I don't personally believe this. I have every confidence that OP could have omitted or supported that sentence, if they had felt like it was expected of them.
I think people fall to the standard they can get away with, and it was clear when the top-level comment was posted that the mods were never going to mod it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, someone still has to report it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the moderators have mentioned several times that they often do not notice rule violations because no one has bothered to report the violations. Did you report this comment and give the moderators enough time to process the report?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is it with spicy race rambling as top level posts today?
OK. On to the contribution. Passport bros are not primarily a reaction to the shortcomings of western women. They're a reaction to the brokenness of western dating markets, where some fraction of people- both male and female, simply cannot find a reasonable match for structural factors. In an ideal world these people would be matched up together because, and I repeat myself, femcels are a thing. This is not an overwhelmingly male group and in an ideal world the redpillers and female dating strategy crowd would get over themselves and find their way together. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world, and neither do the denizens of the third world, who find the USA irresistible.
Nor does it surprise me that redpillers are much blacker than average; gender relations seem much worse in the black community and redpilling is much more common as a reaction to broken down gender relations than it is to endogenously hating women.
Except this is partly just because no one likes black women very much, including black men. Either as attractive in themselves('men do not find African features attractive' is a statement at least as true as 'men don't like fatties' and 'men prefer younger women'), nor for their stereotypes(nobody is going to describe their ideal woman as bossy, demanding, and lazy. Precious few will describe her as strong and sassy, either, if you're trying for more positive stereotypes), nor for their individual characteristics which tend towards obesity, single motherhood, etc.
White men with Mexican wives are everywhere. White men with filipina wives are almost as common. It's not like no one knows this one weird trick. Whites just bluntly refer to mail order brides(or 'Russian brides') instead of using terms like passport bro.
More options
Context Copy link
Black Americans want to date above their social rank, and lighter skin is normally preferred for female mates. So these are big factors that also explain the phenomenon of black Americans wanting a mate from a foreign country.
All of these could be true, while white American women are still preferred generally for other factors (eg beauty, status). I highly doubt the online cohort you are speaking of would be averse to marrying a Western European or southern European woman. But I think they look at Jordan Peterson’s daughter and think, “even he couldn’t stop his daughter from sleeping with celebrities and getting divorced?”. Then they look at Lauren Southern and say, “even this ‘trad’ paragon married a foreign police agent who divorced her and left her as a single mom?” And then you look at, like, any given devout first gen Muslim student or a raised-Mormon girl and see how different things are as a product of adolescent environment.
More options
Context Copy link
In my more "woke" lurking days it was hilarious to see the tensions here. A common refrain was AWALT - all women are like that. It's just the science bro. But when the WN/HBDers started applying the same judgment to blacks, TRPers had to scramble for some reason it didn't apply to them or their comrades in arms.
A real shame the YT era seems to have more message discipline and people like Fuentes can apparently hang around with black manosphere types for clout without similar drama.
I have a simpler theory for why black men do better than black women in interracial dating.. This doesn't run into the problem faced by the theory above: "higher muscularity" as an unalloyed good requires not knowing a lot about the US and how groups are perceived.
I'm not going to get into the distribution of passport bros by race (I come from a country where this is so bad old white women are in on it, whites have sheer mass going for them). But, granting for the sake of argument, it seems like there's a simple explanation here too: black men gain more in status being American outside of America than other groups.
I would have thought typical social attitudes prevalent in the sorts of places passport bros target, like SEA, would be sufficiently unkind towards black people to counteract this relative status increase.
Asian racism cannot compare to the promise of being with an American, and even if 90 out of 100 girls view your black skin as pure vileness there will be 10 girls who want to get their freak on with what daddy hates most.
More options
Context Copy link
"Murphy marries bush bitch"? The idea's what, almost 40 years old now?
More options
Context Copy link
The status increase going from America to actual Africa is pretty extreme.
Examples:
I had a friend whose father was an exchange student from Ethiopia to the US. The father remained in the US for obvious reasons and became a professor of African studies or something. When the family returned to Ethiopia as tourists they had a private audience with the president of the country.
I traveled to Tanzania to walk up Kilimanjaro. (Quick aside: this is not an impressive accomplishment. It is quite doable by anybody with money and a modicum of fitness). Our hotel, average by American standards, was like staying at the Ritz. Anyone who was anyone stayed there. Middle class Americans wearing cargo shorts mingled with the top 0.1% elites wearing bespoke suits. And honestly, we were probably much richer than them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
...balanced out, mind you, by higher rates of obesity, lower educational attainment (manosphere takes it as a given that women won't seriously date someone who doesn't have equal or greater credentials than she), more of them in prison (i.e. out of the dating pool) and of course less wealth in general.
And this is only to lead into my point about "Passport Bros" as a class. The literal main thing they have going for them in the foreign dating market is the ability to offer a quick path to American Citizenship.
That's it. Beyond anything else, they are a golden ticket to getting established in the States.
So for black males in particular, who would struggle otherwise with competing for a high quality mate, they are on an much more equal playing field when the only question is how quickly they can transplant the new lady to the states and marry her so she can move along towards citizenship.
Now, I don't think this explains the full phenomenon, but I've seen enough foreign wives using marriage to an American male as a fulcrum to gaining citizenship (and, if the husband is particularly old, getting access to his wealth when he dies) that I have no illusions about what ACTUALLY attracts foreign women to American males.
There's also exoticism. There's definitely a subset of women attracted to the exotic, and in a very white country, a black foreigner is pretty damned exotic. So a black foreign man has an advantage with that group.
Yes, and dating an obvious foreigner seems like a universal way to rebel against the overculture/go "fuck you, dad."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link