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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link