site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah.

Fixing it doesn't depend SOLELY on reining in female promiscuity (although that's a major factor), we would need to PUNISH male promiscuity, or at least the brand of it where a guy exploits a woman's naivete and leaves her more cynical and closed off than before, because he pays no cost for it.

I'd suggest execution, but the nice compromise solution would be castration.

From "Why We Need the Double Standard" by the Dread Jim:

Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. Therefore we should guard eggs, not sperm. What this means is that it only needs a small number of badboys to render a very large number of women unmarriageable. Thus curtailing male badboy behavior is not going to succeed. And if we restrain prosocial well behaved upper class men from being badboys, the girls are going to get their kicks with Jeremy Meeks and Muslim rapeugees. Restraining male behavior results in upper class women fucking men low IQ men who live on towel folding jobs, petty burglary, drug dealing, and sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriend, men whose careers are not going to be adversely affected by a few rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraint orders. The lawyerette does not fuck her fellow lawyers, she does not fuck judges, she fucks Jeremy Meeks. If we let upper class men be badboys, if we stopped afflicting judges with rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraining orders, at least she would be fucking judges.

The problem is that law and society strengthens shit tests against well behaved, respectable, affluent men, but has limited success in strengthening shit tests against Jeremy Meeks. She fucks men against whom rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraining orders have limited effect, because they can pass her shit tests, and you, even if you have a nicer car and a nicer hotel room than Jeremy Meeks, cannot. Plus the police and the courts just don’t seem to be pursuing rape charges against rapeugees, perhaps because of disparate impact.

All these laws have the effect of holding men responsible for female bad behavior. It is a lot more effective to hold women responsible for male bad behavior, because women, not men are the gate keepers to sex, romance, and reproduction. If you stop some men from behaving badly, women will just find men you cannot or dare not deter.

The problem is that we need to guard what is precious, guard eggs, not sperm. We need to restrain female sexual behavior, not male sexual behavior.

First, we need to change the social order so that the lawyerette fucks the judge instead of Jeremy Meeks. Then we can address the much harder problem of preventing her from fucking either one.

From the comments of "The Reactionary Program" by the same:

One pin can pop a hundred balloons. We have to control female sexuality, not male sexuality.

If you try to control male sexuality, that just means that uncontrollable anti social males father a large proportion of the children.

Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. You guard what precious, not what is cheap.

And from the comments of "COVID Public Service Announcement", idem:

If a thirteen year old is permitted to wander where she pleases, she is going to be pleased to wander where someone can “rape” her. It is not the janitor that is the problem, it is the thirteen year old girl unsupervised. One pin can pop any number of baloons. We need balloon control, not pin control.

If you execute or castrate ninety-nine fuckboys, but miss underclass fuckboy number one hundred, who has nothing to lose and whose high time preference means he does not care about the consequences, he gets to spoil a hundred nice girls.

Whereas if you lock up and marry off ninety-nine girls, but fail to control girl number one hundred, you get ninety-nine happily married wives and one fallen woman.

To end the wars of the sexes, make women property again.

Dude, I know you are a Dread Jim fan, and I think he's actually serious about what he says, but do you realize the world he proposes would be a dystopian nightmare, and not just for women? The guys who seem most attracted to Jim are not trad religious types or pro-civilization vitalists, but incels who long for a world where 13-year-old slave girls will have to pleasure them while they're on their couches playing video games. That's not what would actually happen, and the thing Jim misses is that women are always going to have some agency because we are human beings and the natural state of men and women is to, you know, like each other.

Jim is the flip side of the literal man-hating radical feminists promoting political lesbianism- they start with some (perhaps justified) grievances against the opposite sex, and go down a rabbit hole into a worldview full of misery and the destruction of everything it means to be human.

Every time I see that "Make Women Property Again" essay, I get the same vibe I do from KulakRevolt and his absurd, ahistorical rants making up some mindset about the ancients that they definitely did not have. Even in the most misogynistic cultures in the world, most men don't actually hate women as much as Jim does. To the degree that women were "property," you still saw some actual affection and respect for wives, mothers, and daughters, an affection that Jim and his fanboys seem to think is pussy and gay.

It's not good for you, man.