site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30399 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think your book is wrong. I recommend more science and less Freudianism. You say:

"There are five conditions which enable women to get what they want

from men: women's control of the womb; women's control of the

kitchen; women's control of the cradle; the psychological immaturity of

man relative to woman; and man's tendency to be deranged by his own excited penis."

All of this reifies modern Western consent-centered sex norms. For all of human history until 1960, sex did not work this way. A woman who is considered a minor by law, with her father as her guardian and then her husband, in a society with no concept of "marital rape", has basically none of the power you describe -- she, in fact, has about as much power as a contemporary 13 year old boy, which is nothing.

You kind of recognize that you're reifying the unnatural:

"That man abandons the kitchen to woman, and grovels for access to

a womb, are not ordained by nature or by god, but result from how

woman, who controls the cradle, has chosen to condition boys and girls."

But, scientifically speaking, people don't work like this, so your premise is wrong. Your book contains no science or statistics, which is an epistemic issue that made you vulnerable to this flawed premise, upon which the entire verbal screed seems to be based.

When I initially saw this post I misread it, and though you were promoting the work of the one and great F. Roger Devlin. I'm getting old.

I don't think you can solve the "putting the pussy on the pedestal" view with a purely social or perspective-based solution. It can help your mentality and with avoiding the extremes of cringe beta pushover behavior, but it can't change the basic biological fact that, in terms of having greater reproductive value and necessity, pussy really is on an objective pedestal.

Of course nature did anyway give us men a solution that our ancestors readily applied: because we are stronger, we can simply forcefully control women and set the value of any given pussy (or pussy in general) at what we prefer, irrespective of its value to our reproductive instinct masters.

I do believe modern men should consider reimplementing this solution again. It's the only solution as far as I know that's actually ever worked to comprehensively keep the problem under control.

This isn't the place to shill your own book. We do allow people to post links to their blogs and substacks, etc., within reason, but for something like this, you need to write more than some ad copy.

In an effortpost with something interesting to discuss, in which you put forward your views, maybe we'll allow you to include a link saying "Hey, here's this thing I wrote about it."

ETA: Misunderstanding based on mod logs. I reapproved the post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinweizu?wprov=sfti1

Nah dude, the book is not The posters work. Unless that is him, in which case that's hilarious and awesome and we should welcome him with open arms.

Yes, plus one on adding an exception for 80 year old Nigerian poets peddling their books!

EDIT: Oh god, now I have the visual of the guy's face reacting to getting banned...

I didn't ban him, I just removed the post. It's been restored.

Don't you want to see the regulars argue with an elderly pan African PhD so badly? I'd settle for a high effort impersonator.

Almost like the good old days, back when that enlightened guy wanted to throw down with Deiseach.

The author's name is the same as your username, did you write this?

Can you provide some more information? You give the main point, which is certainly a big problem that a lot of guys have, but what more does it provide?

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