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 -
Essentially you're saying we should shame because she's an effective promoter of her ideas through her niceness?
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to have a child of two rationalists over another member of the permanent underclass. But to speak in plain language: These cucks are self-selecting out of the gene pool, and that's a good thing. Anyone stupid enough to participate in Polyamory is unfit to be a parent.
Artistic merit used to be considered an aggravating factor under 19th Century censorship law for precisely this reason.
(I don’t necessarily endorse this position but I think it’s an interesting and relatable historical fact.)
More options
Context Copy link
From my limited experience with her online presence, she effectively promotes her lifestyle with sex and buzzwords. If she were 50 years old, no one would latch onto her ideology. She is using the inherent weakness of men to manipulate them into a poor way of life, when influencing women to her life with the attention she receives. The reason she should be shamed (ie pointedly negatively evaluated) is that the end result of her lifestyle is a worse world. It’s bad for the people who fall for it and society at large. We don’t want a society where %s of high IQ tech guys have a TFR of 0.25. We don’t want online discourse increasingly sex-obsessed. We want pair-bonds and commitment and emotional stability which children absorb at a young age.
An optimal society is one where the high IQ protects the midwit with his intellect and the midwit protects the high IQ with his intuition. Everyone deserves greater wellbeing, even Aella when she deletes her account. Yet this is a case where even the high IQ can forecast the bad second-order consequences of her lifestyle. Just trivial familiarization with the hedonic treadmill will explain why “get everyone increasingly sensitive to sexual pleasure and talking about sex and seeking more of its pleasure” is bad. It would be better to run a pro-smoking account. Giving up polyamory isn’t even giving up pleasure but just stopping a downward spiral of increased sexualization. (And she can do whatever she wants in private, right; it’s the promotion that’s bad, it’s not about policing her own private failings which everyone has — it’s about not increasing it in the future generations)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link