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 -
So much clueless discourse and blathering on here really makes me think that a lot of people here have rather interestingly false conceptions of the gap between them and an attractive man in terms of dating success. That's not to speak of the absolutely massive gap between the average man and the average woman that I think could do with some amount of rectification though the use of a couple particularly pertinent examples. In short-- the average man i.e a guy who would probably get rated a 6 or 7 by most people is virtually invisible to women online to a degree that's frankly quite horrific when you compare it to the experience of an attractive man. The average guy could probably expect to reasonably manage about 5 to 10 likes a day, probably dropping off to less than that after the first week, with maybe a couple matches a week and perhaps 1 out of 50 matches actually converting to a date and an even smaller proportion converting to anything more significant than that. That doesn't sound too bad, right?
The thing is, an attractive man isn't just getting say 10% more matches, or even just doubling their matches. The amount of attention they get from women usually dwarfs the average male by several orders of magnitude. The top profiles on Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, are maxing out the like counter in give or take under an hour, the rungs below that with ease in under a day and so on and so forth. There are plenty of men who are not rich, not famous, not exceptional in any way really other than the face God gave them and perhaps the muscles Trenbolone gave them (though if you're thinking steroids alone will make you one of these men, you're living in a world of delusion-- women want the complete package) breaking 20,000 matches in relatively modest sized metro areas like Copenhagen, Stockholm or Denver. I should probably note that these profiles are typically white men though, as funnily enough even here racial gaps manifest, though this is frankly a matter of degrees, as even these disadvantaged attractive men of color are usually not lacking for women-- but it's going to be generally significantly less attractive and desirable women and they'll have to be a point or two better than their white counterpart to compete. These men have such an abundance of choice and easy access to women that they effectively dwell in a completely separate reality when compared to the average man-- they are the pickers and choosers and have no desperate need to compromise or settle down with one woman. Think of the gap between a man with 70 IQ and a man with 160 IQ in terms of capacity for intellectual output and perhaps multiply that gap a few times and you'll have a somewhat decent grasp of the dynamic in play here.
No amount of game or self improvement will ever get you close to that if you lack the genetic basis for it. It's like thinking a 70 IQ man can become a world class physicist and win the Nobel prize if he just tried hard enough-- the world doesn't work that way.
It's well known that attractive women have their pick of the litter, but I'll just add in that a woman need not be particularly attractive to be bombarded with options. The average girl you see on the street could open any dating app and find literal thousands of men throwing themselves at her within a day, maybe two or three if she's a bit ungifted in the face. Though as with attractive men, there's a pretty big gap between the kinds and amount of attention that white women get, and every other race of woman, including Asian women (of the northeastern and southern varieties) and having blue or green eyes supercharges this a surprising amount.
Here's an album of proof
The absolute last thing anyone here needs is more blackpills about dating. Yes, the apps suck. Yes, there are people who will always be more attractive than you due to the vagaries of genetics and society. Yes, birth and marriage rates are going down the drain. No one can deny these things; we live them every day and they have been discussed to death here and elsewhere. If you have some new data apart from Tinder screenshots, that would be interesting. If you insist that we must all accept our place at the bottom of the totem pole in our new de facto polygamous society, that could be an interesting line of inquiry too. After all, we have plenty of historical examples for comparison, as well as other analogous traits (e.g. will people respond any differently to being told they belong to a group with below average IQ vs. a group with below average reproductive success?). Just give us something to work with besides "we're cooked, gooners."
I literally just want to figure out the most most efficient way to show the Boomers pushing the "just improve yourself and then women will flock to you" advice that this is horribly insufficient and increasingly divorced from reality, so that they can be convinced to either start helping with the problem or, preferably, stand aside to let others fix it rather than just interfering with anybody who tries so NOBODY can fix it.
The fact that they don't let any 'serious' guy talk about the problem or take genuine actions is why Andrew Tate is the main voice men get to hear about this from.
The youngest living Boomers are roughly 70 years old. What's the point in trying to convince them? People generally don't change their worldview over the age of 35 anyway.
Because they still largely hold the reins of power, which at a bare minimum means they can stop solutions from being implemented.
Other solution, aside from outright revolution, is to wait patiently for them to die.
Are Boomers in particular an obstacle? Can you give some examples of Boomer reins of power halting solutions from being implemented?
It's true that Boomers might deny the problem. They are the quintessential caricature to say "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" but everyone -- not just Boomers -- shares that sentiment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're not going to get very far with that. As anti-woke as this place is, a good chunk, possibly the majority, of the people here are progressive, and the only way they'll accept a criticism of progress is if you 50 Stalins it:
Other than that no one who doesn't fundamentally agree with you already will suddenly start, no matter the amount of evidence.
Why bend over backwards to dunk on the forum, instead of proposing solutions yourself? There is an obvious 50-Stalins solution to the "romance recession", which is waifu/husbando tech/ever-improving AI partners. The obvious endpoint for a society of individuals whose standards have them demand ever more while providing ever less is to put everyone in their personal lotus-eater simulation hugbox, anyway.
That being said, if we make it past all the impending Great Filters at all, I'm not too concerned about these lesser problems in the long run. In my entire social bubble, tracking from early graduate school if not earlier, there are few signs of "romance recession" - most everyone has organically paired up, whether it is from in-person matching or online dating or circulating date-me docs, and I guess we'll see in the next 5-10 years what will happen with birth rates although some are already starting to have ~2 kids, maximum observed 4. There clearly are subclusters of more sustainable norms in the waiting; given that feedback length is on the order of one lifetime, I would expect natural selection to spread them fast, and the (particular) problems we are observing to only be this one wretched generation's cross to bear.
Sorry about that, but I'm a bit jaded about the pretense of rationality in these discussions. They never have been, and I doubt they even can be.
Ban porn sites, dating sites, smartphones, and civilian wireless internet.
I might be missing something, but it sounds like the opposite of a solution.
Like I said, not a rational conversation. This argument would be immediately dismissed if it was used to argue for something you disagree with, and you know it.
What are examples of irrationality in these discussions to you?
Usual objection: coordination problem. Assuming you can even create a strong enough dictatorship in one country or several to implement all of these, how do you stop people from defecting to a country that doesn't participate in the bans, and that country subsequently curbstomping yours?
Uh, it depends on what exactly you define the problem to be. Do you want people to report happiness/satisfaction of a cluster of needs that could be summarised as "companionship", or do you want people to pair up? It's obviously a solution for deficiences in the former but not in the latter, but if you consider the latter to be the only problem you want to solve, you run the risk of winding up in a world where nobody even agrees with you that there is a problem.
To a skeptic, this exchange may be isomorphic to something like:
Tribal elder: It is a problem that nobody sacrifices to the grain gods anymore, but you progressives will never acknowledge that there might be a problem there because there is no progressive solution to it.
Progressive(?): Well, there's a perfectly progressive solution. We just have to build up a fertiliser industry and develop industrial farming, so there will never be a shortage of grain again.
Tribal elder: This sounds like the opposite of a solution.
Who is right? On the surface, the progressive really did propose something close to the opposite of a solution to the Elder's problem as stated, but on the other hand it seems quite reasonable to treat the prospect of a grain shortage as the problem the Elder was actually talking about. Certainly, the Elder's authority would have suffered if he had been forced to make explicit from the outset that he doesn't care whether there is grain or not, but just wants people to sacrifice to the Gods regardless. His position depends upon being able to lean on an implicit assumption that sacrificing to the Gods is good (whether for the stated purpose of improving grain yield, or some other unnamed good), without having to explain or defend this.
Instead of talking about a hypothetical dismissal, please actually explain the grounds on which you want to dismiss it yourself. I don't see anything obviously wrong with it - variants like "$country will be majority-Muslim in a few years even if we stop immigration now" are structurally exactly the same thing deployed to right-wing ends. Do you think that one can be dismissed too, or are Muslims uniquely capable of receiving the boons of natural selection?
I'll be happy to, but I must also note that the dismissal would absolutely take place (and that you know it would), because the non-rationality of the discourse is part of our conversation. If you want a non-hypothetical example, just look at the conversation in this thread, and note the amount of people that don't even bother questioning OP's evidence, putting forward arguments that are later refuted with evidence, but not changing their mind, etc. This sort of stuff happens all the time, has always happened, and will continue to happen. At some point we should just come clean and admit that the conversation we're having is not based on reason.
We ban shit all the time, and you don't need a dictatorship for it. The EU basically forced retarded cookie banners on the world, so they can force porn sites back into the underground as well.
I'm not convinced this is even a realistic threat. Who is going to leave behind their house, job, and family, because they're not allowed to goon and/or doomscroll on a mobile device?
The latter. If I wanted to maximize reports of happiness/satisfaction, I'd be hooking people on heroin, and ensuring they answer the survey while high.
Aren't you the tribal elder and me the progressive in this scenario? I'm the one insisting the goal is reflective of material reality, while you're the one pushing for a simulacrum with no connection to it.
Anyway, this only proves my thesis. Either your example is reflective of our case - two people talking about two different issues, and the progressive is more than happy to chime in, because he has a progressive solution to a progressive issue - after it's been reframed to be about something else (grain production, rather than the originally raised decline of religion). Or - let's assume the Elder was actually worried about a potential famine - he's happy to talk about it because there is a progressive solution on offer.
You really don't see an issue with the bit I quoted? You'd accept an argument like "in my geographical bubble there's few signs of 'global warming'"?
Not exactly. Sure, it's possible that resistence to anti-natalism will be passed down, but then again it's also possible that it won't, so you're basically saying "we might recover or not" and bring no new definition to the table. And even if recovery does occur, your argument offers no insight into what such a world will look like, and whether we should embrace or avoid it.
I actually think Muslims in Europe are just as susceptible to progressive anti-natalism as Europeans, they might still end up the majority because of different starting points for the trends, but I'm not in favor of naive extrapolation of the present state.
I mean, even in the Good Old Days, there were lifelong bachelors and spinsters who never got married, or the chance to marry, due to different reasons: lack of financial support (men who couldn't earn enough to support a wife and family, women whose families couldn't provide dowries - and for example, in the wake of the Great Famine in Ireland having that kind of financial inducement for marriage, be it the eldest son inheriting the land or the eldest daughter having a dowry going with her made a huge difference in marriage prospects, and could lead to younger siblings having no such prospects), not enough potential spouses (too many women, or too many men, depending), oddities of character (being ugly, being weird, being otherwise not considered suitable), women being stuck at home in the caretaker role for elderly parents and missing out on the chance to marry until too old, etc.
There are modern reasons why people don't marry, or can't marry even if they want to, but it's always been true that at least some element of the population was never going to marry either.
More options
Context Copy link
Many emigrate from places such as Russia because they were merely afraid that at some point the nuts will get screwed tight enough that they won't be allowed to doomscroll what they want and goon to what they want to on their mobile devices. Or ban being gay, or ban talking about being gay, or do a number of other things the young view as backwards and retarded.
It is not very pronounced in Russia because emigrating to the first world from the second world is hard. The other way around seems like a much easier choice.
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
This is not a solution. Tokophobia is a minor part of the birthrate decline; the median woman who won’t have kids won’t do so because she doesn’t want to be a mom, not because she’s afraid of getting pregnant.
You don't have to tell this to me, but I've already heard arguments like "look at those silly conservatives crying about falling birthrates but opposing IVF / surrogacy / artificial wombs".
More options
Context Copy link
It's not just tokophobia but how pregnancy can permanently change your life in many ways.
Sure, and a huge number of these changes boil down to ‘you have a kid now’.
Yes, but even outside of that pregnancy can have changes that affect your life permanently. Many women have permanent body changes and problems that they have to live with. Apart from health issues, there is still the fact that many women are unable to do much during pregnancy and it affects your career.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fifty seven years on, and Humanae vitae looks better and better. Everyone was expecting, especially in the wake of Vatican II, that finally, finally, the Catholics would get with modern times and accept birth control (after all, the Anglicans had given in on this as far back as 1930).
Instead, Paul VI went "nuh-uh", everyone was horribly disappointed, and the teaching of the Church remained unbroken. And now, all these decades past the Sexual Revolution, we're looking at the problem "but why is nobody dating? having sex? having babies? getting married? staying married? how did this happen after all the liberty and joy we were promised?"
More options
Context Copy link
Respectfully, this seems slightly off the mark. There's plenty of RETVRN-posting on the Motte, sometimes quite overtly. Just look at all the people who indeed advocate for Christianity as the only path to running a functioning civiilization.
Sure, I didn't mean that everyone at the motte is progressive, just a decent amount. Possibly a majority, but I'm less sure of that.
And I think RETVRNpoasters (of which I am one) will tend agree with him. Perhaps not on the specifics of the causes and the solutions, but on there being an issue, and the uselessness of boomer-tier "muh bootsraps" advice.
Ah fair enough; on a strict reading you did say as much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Honest dating advice coaches aren't like "just improve yourself and then supermodels will jump on your cock every day", they're more like "improve yourself and you will be able to maximize whatever you're starting out with". It's not like the Internet dating advice space is just entirely made up of the sort of "bro just improve yourself and you'll start having to fend off supermodels all the time" material. There's plenty of that, but there is also more realistic stuff out there. Sure, there are many grifters out who promise unrealistic abilities, but there is also plenty of dating advice out there that actually works to maximize whatever basic gifts you started out with.
I don't know what serious actions could be taken about the issue on a wide-spread level other than sexual communism. But I myself do not desire sexual communism. Partly for a moral reason... I do not wish women to be coerced to have sex with people they would not otherwise want to have sex with. But also for non-moral reasons. I prefer to compete openly in the sexual marketplace and thus know from an ego perspective that whatever I am getting, I am getting due to my own qualities rather than because of some outside pressures. This is also why I have never had any interest in visiting prostitutes. Which is a funny two-sided thing. Because on the one hand it shows that I value sex for more than just sex, but then if I really dig down into it one of the main reasons why I don't want to visit prostitutes is just because it would be an ego decreaser. I just don't have a sex drive so high that I want to fuck no matter what... for me the satisfaction of having the other person want me is a key part of it, and while that might sound good abstractly, it actually might say more about my ego than about my morality.
In any case, I can't think of any political answer to the issue that wouldn't restrict women's liberties, and I'm not into restricting women's liberties. Most of why I'm not into it is because my morality, the rest is because of a sense that wanting to restrict women's sexual liberties as a man is loser-coded and the proper masculine thing to do is to let women do whatever they want and attract them anyway, not to try to restrict their sexual decisions.
Dragging only this chunk out to comment on it.
If you firmly believe this, it implies that men as they acted for the first 6000 years or so of civilization had masculinity wrong. I find this to be extremely improbable, and I am betting that you are operating strictly on modern vibes regarding masculinity, which I believe are actually designed to destroy masculinity in both thought and deed.
If I am wrong and you feel you have applied a great deal of thought to the idea, then I accept we have come to different conclusions. But if on reflection you also think that you may just be running on vibes, I urge you to really dig deep into how some male role model of yours in the pre-modern era approached his interactions with women.
More options
Context Copy link
We've run this experiment for about 30 or so years.
That is, we tore up any laws or social norms that might be considered restrictions on women's liberty (Even WITHIN the marital relationship!), gave them 'equal rights' to every legal benefit they could want, we have every single cultural institution, Academia, Corporations, Social Media, Hollywood, all telling them they never have to settle.
Then the few guardrails that remained (i.e. religion) have been pushed aside, so that women genuinely do not have ANY pressure on them to live up to ANY standards, whatsoever.
And what we see is that women have more mental illness, are more medicated than ever, have more radical politics than ever, are less healthy than ever, they have more sex partners yet fewer children, and self reported happiness is lower than ever.
Don't know what to tell you man, women are miserable under this current state of affairs, too. And they tend to blame men, despite having been given all the agency they could possibly want.
Solutions that DON'T directly restrict sexual liberties could involve removing the direct incentives to put off relationship formation and simply reinstate the cultural 'guardrails' that at least give them a path they can follow that tends to create healthy outcomes.
Surely we can put some 'pressure' on women to settle down earlier without making it a legal mandate?
Sure, but that relies on men wanting to settle down earlier, and in the halcyon days before liberalisation as described, men saw marriage and fatherhood as traps, as women trying to net a husband and tie a man down. Jokey references such as "the old ball and chain" may have been jokes, but also were a cultural assumption that wives were shackles (literally) on a man's freedom - to have sexual experiences, to travel, to drink/smoke/have fun, to enjoy being a bachelor.
The movement towards Free Love and Sexual Liberation was two-pronged; men wanted to be free of obligations as much as women wanted the sexual freedoms of men. The (to my ears) rather whiny lyrics of the 70s hit Lydia express this: the guy wants to be free but also wants a no-strings-attached woman and place to crash when he wants/needs it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What exactly counts as either coercion or restriction in this particular context though?
This is indeed a relevant question given Women’s susceptibility to social pressure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So I guess all men and women of good character before the sexual revolution, from Caesar to Confucius to Queen Victoria to Jesus Christ were all loser coded and immoral.
What a grand and intoxicating innocence.
Christianity was different in that it put restrictions on male sexuality, as well as female sexuality. Now there was a new standard for men to live up to.
So men must be as chaste as women; no whoring around, no mistresses, no divorce-remarry-divorce-remarry, no casual sex.
I do not think Abrahamism and Christianity in particular is special in regulating the sexuality of both sexes. There's plenty of other moral doctrines that do. It may do it more or in different ways, but the proposition that one sex had total dominion on the other at any point in history except in times of rape and pillage is highly dubious.
But Christianity, as per those quotes from Scripture, put the same limitations on men. For Judaism (and Islam afterwards) divorce was the right of a man, easier for him to obtain, and the divorced woman was left in a parlous position. The Classical world at the time of early Christianity, such as Rome, had no qualms about men divorcing and remarrying multiple times. Polygamy may have been tolerated culturally in some societies, ease of sexual access for men was unquestioned (legal prostitution, mistresses, etc.)
Christianity came along and said no. One wife. No mistresses. Wives have the same right of sexual access to their husbands as husbands have to their wives. No sleeping around before/within marriage. No prostitution. No divorce.
Now, did Christians live up to that code? Of course not. But as a change from the prevailing attitudes, it was incredible. Even the stories of martyrs, like St Perpetua, defying the traditional authority of father and husband and family were amazing new changes in the status and freedom of women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You could at least call him "Moon and Star" before diving into the insults
but to this place where destiny is made, why did he come unprepared?
You know what, maybe I should start haunting people's dreams. That seems like a good use of my time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I doubt Caesar would have feared competing in a free sexual marketplace.
"Every man's woman, every woman's man" 😀
More options
Context Copy link
In 18 BC, Augustus passed the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis which made adultery a crime and contained the following penalties:
I guess the man who won the Roman civil war and made his adoptive father a god and himself an emperor at only 32 was loser coded.
Do you want to know what Victoria, ruler of the largest empire in history, thought about free love or shall we leave it at that?
I interpreted @Goodguy's comment to mean that someone arguing for reducing women's liberties for the sake of improving their own dating prospects is loser-coded. Caesar and Augustus probably had more conservative sexual ethics than most western people do today, but I imagine that was for reasons other than worrying that they'd lose out to chad if women could choose their own suitors.
I think that the concern that either sex would chose the fleeting fun of an attractive partner instead of someone who's dutiful and pro social springs eternal, actually.
Parents have always feared this and will always fear this. They simply used to have more cultural power to enforce their will in societies that had or still have more tight knit familial bonds.
And moreover, the consequences of licentiousness used to be far more immediate and catastrophic for women before widespread contraception and on demand abortions. It's no surprise that the sexual revolution and the advent of that technology coincided.
Still, the more pernicious effects remain there and that includes the destabilizing effect of winner takes all harem dynamics.
More options
Context Copy link
You are correct about my meaning. I probably should have made that more clear in my original comment.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not "loser-coded" if you're just a loser. Nobody would even blink an eye at a poor person being for socialism, it's not even a great condemnation to note it. It's sort of a trivial statement that losers look like losers.
"Loser-coded" implies that the act itself carries the stench of failure and ressentiment no matter who does it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Gibbon tells us that of the first fifteen Roman emperors, only Claudius had sexual tastes that were "correct."
Augustus introduced these reforms to marriage, was succeeded by a series of perverts and deviants for decades until the dynastic changeover at least.
Rome was a pretty libertine society at the upper rungs, but you need to take dirty rumors about Roman emperors with a grain of salt. Politicized smear campaigns were just as much of a thing back then as they are now, and often that stuff later ended up being written down as fact. In 2000 years it will be “well established historical fact” that Emperor Trump was once micturated upon by princesses from the Kievan Rus and that Proconsul Hillary was a witch who drank blood to extend her lifespan.
More options
Context Copy link
It's true, people rarely live up to their principles, and powerful men are no exception. But people still understood that as a failure.
Sexual impropriety among the Romans caused them real concrete problems that those reforms tried to ameliorate. The idea that those were just the hangups of losers that don't merit consideration is silly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Only one biological child - a daughter - and gives the empire to his stepsons? Cuck.
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