site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44935 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think the decline in fertility below 2.1 (replacement rate) can be directly linked to modern day feminism and women's rights. However, what I have noticed is that rich female friendly nations do far better in terms of birth rate than rich conservative strict gender role societies.

For example - France has a fertility rate around 1.8. 1.7 for the US. Germany 1.4.

In the east with more strict gender norms the rich societies however have far more abysmal fertility rates - Japan 1.3, South Korea 0.8, Taiwan 1.1, Singapore 1.2.

Now one may argue that the decline in fertility rate is not due to feminism and women's emancipation but rather due to improvements in wealth of society. However, a counterpoint to this is that faster modernizing societies; in terms of becoming more feminist, tend to have declining fertility rates even when not wealthy nations.

Example- Nepal - 1.8, India - 2.0-2.1.

Based on the above data I would posit that feminist societies result in fertility rates declining to below replacement rates, but once a country is wealthy it is far worse for the population to remain conservative than for it to be a feminist nation due to the fact that conservative rich nations do far worse on population growth than feminist nations.

Conclusion - modern feminism doomed/ saved human civilization to constant steady population decline and that's the best case scenario for population demographics from all the options currently available.

Thoughts?

I see an obvious problem with your analysis: perhaps, regardless of feminism or wealth, the east and the west have different sexual norms and fertility baselines.

Let me add on where I am coming from to enhance understanding.

I do not see a problem with population decline itself.

The problem is that a population decline above a certain rate would always result in a socio-economic collapse.

Add on to this the fact that after a certain point a country ends up being too small in numbers to be able to compete well with it's competitors if those other countries maintain long term higher numbers.

Now, as you said different countries have different sexual norms and fertility baselines. However, far as I can tell, any country that starts to align its laws with western women's rights ideals tends to see it's fertility rate drop faster than countries that have no to little contact with such ideologies.

This itself is again not the problem, the issue is that by the end of the day fertility decline beyond a certain threshold results in national instability and decay risks increasing.

Plus on a more personal note, I have never been a fan of death cults, not even those that actively speak of freedoms and liberty.

Adding on to this the fact that modern day feminism appears to me as one of the rare ideologies which place motherhood on the back burner as a worthwhile or celebratory value. Going as far as to not only deny it's value but to actively celebrate single independent livelihoods as the sole aspiration.

I could be wrong in my interpretation however and would like to hear your thoughts on that.

My thoughts are that feminism began as a misguided quest to treat women like men, then was adopted by bitter harridans and predatory men who realized the sexual revolution and increasing destruction of traditional mindsets would secure them steady supplies of consequence-free young pussy (a boon for the latter) at the expense of the stability and health of our previous culture (a boon for the former).

The goal of feminism is to let women be the type of men they've always hated. It's no surprise this suffocates fertility.

You showed up here saying that you got banned from the old site, and I think it's becoming clear why.

Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument.

Some of the things we discuss are controversial, and even stating a controversial belief can antagonize people. That's OK, you can't avoid that, but try to phrase it in the least antagonistic manner possible. If a reasonable reader would find something antagonistic, and it could have been phrased in a way that preserves the core meaning but dramatically reduces the antagonism, then it probably should have been phrased differently.

Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.

Also known as the "hot take" rule.

If you're saying something that's deeply out of the ordinary or difficult-to-defend, the next person is going to ask you to explain what you mean. You can head this off by explaining what you mean before hitting submit. The alternative is that the first half-dozen responses will all be "can you explain in more detail", which increases clutter and makes it much harder to follow the conversation.

I have an entire mod queue full of partisan flaming from you, and that's after I already handed you a warning. (Which isn't visible unless you hit "more comments", we clearly need to do a better job of permalinks.)

I'm giving you a one-day ban; you either need to behave a lot differently or find another site.

Is this the first ban of the new site? :D

We've silently banned a number of trolls, but I think this is the first not-a-straight-up-troll ban.

My thoughts are that feminism began as a misguided quest to treat women like men

Disagree unless you mean be given the same basic rights as men. Then the same financial and social freedoms as men. Acting like men was a very 2010's thing.

then was adopted by bitter harridans and predatory men who realized the sexual revolution and increasing destruction of traditional mindsets would secure them steady supplies of consequence-free young pussy

Disagree. 1960's feminism had a whimsical quality to it which would have genuinely attracted many followers who wanted to see the world be a nicer place.

at the expense of the stability and health of our previous culture (a boon for the former).

There weren't enough harridans in that time period. Most incels actually came to be in recent decades only.

The goal of feminism is to let women be the type of men they've always hated. It's no surprise this suffocates fertility.

That appears to have been the trend of only the newest wave of feminism.

I believe you are making the mistake of taking current day attitudes and extending them through previous historical time periods to come to conclusions as to what they were about.

No, the old waves I mentioned as the misguided quest.

If feminism misguided then why South Korea collapsing first?

South Korea

I haven't thought about OP's argument enough to have an actual opinion on it, but feminism in South Korea is heavily influenced by Megalia and WOMAD, which are basically 4chan-level cesspools with all sorts of insanity.

If fire is hot how come it hurts when a shark bites you?

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