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 -
Do we still talk about Scott's articles on this site?
He has a new one out about Conflict Theory vs. Mistake Theory.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-i-am-not-a-conflict-theorist
The general thrust of his argument is that conflict theory doesn't explain voting patterns because people vote against their self-interest. For example, rich elites are generally in favor of raising taxes, which affect them disproportionately. And it was young people, not vulnerable old people, who were more likely to be lockdown fascists during Covid.
But I'm not sure if this adequately explains conflict vs. mistake theory. Conflict theory is inherently tribal, and people will do things against their own self-interest, even their tribal self-interest, to own the other tribe. Dunking on the other team is its own reward, moreso than actual spoils.
Nevertheless, I remain a mistake theorist. More of the modern world developed by accident than by scheming. For example, take immigration. Clearly, this is an area of heated tribal conflict now. But it wasn't always this way. When the US opened up the current era of mass immigration in the mid-1960s, it wasn't an effort to change the ethnic makeup or import voters. At the time, demographers projected that there would be 400,000 immigrants a year, of whom 367,000 would be white! In other words, they were spectacularly wrong.
The rewrite of our country's genetic makeup happened by accident while no one was looking.
Gay rights is another area where mistake theory wins. Clearly there was a lot of conflict in this area. But then, something happened around 2010 and one side just stopped fighting. A new consensus emerged: "Love wins. People are born that way. Queer people just want to be tolerated. They don't want to shove it in our face. They just want to love their partners the same way that straight people do. They definitely won't try to convert kids." And within 15 years, almost everything about this consensus was proven wrong. Even if you think this was the plan of the gay movement all along, it still doesn't explain why Republicans went along for the ride. You might say... they were mistaken.
Sports gambling? Mistake theory.
Marijuana legalization? Mistake theory.
De-policing? Mistake theory.
People generally aren't trying to mess things up. They are just wrong about the consequences of their ideas. Sure, there are like 5 or 10% of people who are true radicals who want to destroy society and will lie to achieve their means. But the average politician or corporate leader just doesn't understand how the world works. They'll buy a load of horseshit because it sounds good and it gratifies their ego. The world changes when wrong ideas face no resistance.
Uh, how? Are you talking about trans stuff?
My understanding is that the median male homosexual does not "love their partner" in the same way that I do. It's now been admitted that "born that way" was a convenient lie which will now be discarded. LGBT as an ideological movement definitely wants to shove their ideology in my face. And they will in fact try to convert kids; at a minimum, "an unspecified but large percentage of kids are actually LGBTQ+ in their core nature, and helping them discover this through incessant, inescapable indoctrination from every level of society is a good thing". I understand that others might disagree with these statements, but I'm confident I can back all of them with solid evidence.
What does this mean?
For one example, my understanding is that the median male homosexual does not practice monogamy and is not interested in raising children. Is your understanding otherwise?
That has more to do with the fact that they’re men than the fact that they’re gay. Male homosexuality is simply male sexuality that doesn’t have to deal with women. How many straight men would practice monogamy if they could have unlimited sex on demand simply by going on an app?
Despite that, there’s still a sizeable proportion of gay men that choose monogamy and raising children, hence the demand for gay marriage and surrogacy.
How do we reconcile the concept of the Patriarchy with evident longstanding social norms of enforced monogamy?
I'm also a man. My "love for my partner" is founded on monogamy and raising children. I agree that "male sexuality that doesn't have to deal with women" is probably a pretty good explanation for many of the features of male homosexual norms that we can observe. But the fact remains that my relationship with my partner is in fact built around "dealing with women", and one woman in particular, and that as a consequence their "love for their partner" and mine do not appear to be the same sort of thing at all.
What proportion? 51%? 25%? 10%? 5%? less?
I would contend that the previous effort was to try to create the impression that monogamy and raising children, among other signifiers of "normality", were in fact 50%+. That this was only achievable by lying shamelessly is my point.
Just like when it's a Matriarchy; the only difference is which gender gets the better deal by default in the divorce (if it's a Patriarchy, the man comes out ahead, vice versa for women under Matriarchy).
Yes, marriage is the oldest and most respected form of professional agreement: sex for resources. Some people do describe that as love, and I have no reason to believe they are not telling the truth. It is the optimal arrangement for some, likely most, people- and this is how negotiations between husband and wife should function provided both are conducting themselves with the proper amount of self-interest.
The ultimate problem with gay couples is that no such agreement can exist due to them both being the gender that provides resources. Naturally, they cannot be strongly bound to each other. Lesbians have that problem as well- they both have a surplus of sex, so how will they obtain resources? And don't get me started on the people who forsake their natural strengths to the point they cut them off.
All of those relationships can't produce children while still qualifying as monogamy, since sex is when you implant, or run the risk of implanting, one participant's sperm into the other's egg. So, if the sperm or egg come from outside the relationship that means, on its face, it is not monogamous (and claims that it remains so are a farce).
No- in the context of "marriage" I think they're very similar. Lesbian "marriages" are less stable than straight ones due to lack of resources and initiative, whereas gay "marriages" are more stable than straight ones due to more of those things- proving that at the end of the day, it is the resources and the proper management thereof that keeps the family together.
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
More options
Context Copy link