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 -
This tweet from an economists caught my eye.
“One of the biggest gaps in economics is explaining why outcomes differ across countries.
Why is homeownership lower in Germany? Why do the rich live the center of the city in Argentina, but in the suburbs in America?
We don't have great frameworks to answer these Qs.“
https://twitter.com/arpitrage/status/1786042798275277144?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
Is this a question we really don’t know the answer to or a question that good people have learned to not consider the frameworks that are explanatory? I feel like the white nationalist and the woke can easily answer this question. One side will say racism and the other side will say diversity is not our strength and people fled from crime.
Wikipedia has the Great Migration occurring 1910-1970. And White Flight as occurring 1950’s-1960’s. Cities largely built before then have dense urban cores . Those cities built after are endless suburbs. Of course cars took off as a middle class thing around this time period too. Argentina might be a higher percent European ancestry than any country in the world.
How many other question have solutions to them that aren’t analyzed because the researcher starts with the wrong frame.
Pretty much the entirety of sociology is based on the faulty blank-slate premise.
For example, we see that boys participate in sports at a higher rate than girls. And so we say "how can we increase girls in sports". But that's the wrong framework. In fact, girls sports participation is far too high. Girls and women don't spontaneously play sports. Seriously, have you EVER seen a group of women playing pickup basketball or soccer in the park? I never have. Literally never. (Although sometimes one or two bold women will join the guys).
While girls enjoy being part of a team, they would have a lot more fun participating in something besides sports.
Nor have I.
Closest to male/female parity I’ve seen or experienced would be in beach volleyball, where women may ask to join on-going pickup games so they can better teehee around in a bikini and bask in male attention.
I’ve played a lot of pickup basketball games growing up and as a young adult, but probably a single digit number of them included a woman on a squad that tagged in (usually of quite different aesthetics than the aforementioned volleyball women). And they’d be left generally unguarded by (us) men. I’ve never seen just women playing each other in a pickup basketball game In the Wild, ranging from 2v2 to 5v5.
Of course, one might counter that this is only due to societal factors and internalised misogyny that leave women too traumatised, anxious, and self-conscious to play pickup games against each other, that life as a woman is too exhausting and time-consuming as to leave mana for playing sports, or that men are always manspreading their way across courts and fields and crowding out women with their toxic competitiveness and rapey male gaze.
With regard to organised sports, my hypothesis has been that, given low birth rates among married Western couples, fathers with no or few sons have a tendency to treat their daughter(s) as the son(s) they lack as cope and compensation to keep the info-hazard Daughter Question thoughts at bay.
Thus resulting in higher female participation in sports than there would otherwise be. Of course, this is no guarantee that one’s daughter won’t do the usual thot-maxxing when it comes to her profession, hobbies, or “hobbies,” as Maycee Barber’s father was recently reminded.
I'm almost afraid to ask. Is this just the "think about it logically" copypasta?
Googling seems to suggest yes. For the sake of not leaving anyone out:
I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for the men that will eventually fuck her in every hole.
Raised the perfect girl? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man who had nothing to do with the way she grew up, who marries her. He gets to fuck her tight pussy every night. He gets the benefits of her kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised her.
As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically.
This is so silly. The thing that makes a cuck cucked is that the children he is supporting are not biologically his. But (absent certain modern reproductive technology that is in practice only used by the infertile) your daughter's children will always be your biological grandchildren.
If you think about the social scripts about how RealMenTM deal with their future sons-in-law, you talk to your daughters' dates while cleaning your guns in order to convince them that she isn't available for casual sex, but once it is clear that the young man is suitable and his intentions are honourable, you are on the same side.
The pop-cultural use of "cuck" seems to long have come detached from reproduction, to generally denote someone who would surrender what he cares for the most without a fight and perhaps derive masochistic pleasure from the process. (The accusation of being a "cuckservative" would not be dispelled by a credible claim that it helped the cuckservative get a liberal chick to bear his kids.)
The implication that the terminal value of incels with whom the copypasta resonates must be themselves getting laid, or at most getting laid vicariously through a hypothetical son who is just like them, rather than the preservation of their lineage, seems to check out against stereotypes too - at least to me the idea of a typical incel whose primary lament is that he will not be able to satisfy his parents' wish for a grandchild feels somewhat incongruous.
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