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 -
In the abstract is this sentence: "It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data." The study is therefore an argument against the position that it is valid to divide Homo sapiens into 'these groups'. 'These groups' is clearly in reference to race. I have not disputed race, or other subgroupings of humans, as valid categories. Therefore this does not argue against my point, you are just pattern matching me citing the obvious statistical fact that there is more variance within races than between races to some other argument based on that. I do not deny HBD, I am aware that there is an average and meaningful intelligent gap between racial averages. And here I am again, trying to divine what your actual argument is because you have not seen fit to actually advance one. There are directions you can go but you're just doing this lazy thing where you link a barely related study as a talisman. Naked study spam is a reddit leftist thing and it is not impressive.
Is it confusing to you that you can't convince women to join you in this society? Yes, Slavery is bad actually. But this is down to terminal values so I don't think either of us will be convincing each other on this point.
I'm sure you can find fascists bits of the internet and pedophile bits of the internet that agree with you but we're talking a rounding error of total social rejects. If it was only fascism you were pushing I could see you at least having some support but most fascist types I've talked to are definitely in the pedos in woodchippers camp. I can't say I know the pedophile disposition very well.
Then you use a standard HBD denialist talking point as an excuse to reject clear racial heuristics (which is what started the discussion) which you just admitted are true anyway... because? You can't advocate for every sufficient premise of an argument and then say "You're just mindlessly pattern matching me to someone who believes that argument!" when the implications of that are pointed out.
If you think that the study that is most commonly cited to refute the origin of your own talking point to the point where it has its own Wikipedia page highlighting this purpose is "barely related" then you are quite frankly simply uninformed.
Not true. In the age of rapekinks, plenty of women find it appealing. (Women are naturally subservient creatures and thus inevitably quickly grow bored of their own "freedom" (which in my view mostly explains their increasingly aberrant behavior like having their breasts removed, ever higher rates of mental illness, etc.), like a poorly trained dog who bolts when off a leash and soon finds it doesn't even remember what it was running from or to.)
Of course it matters not anyway. Women had very little part in building modernity (and plenty part in degrading it) and thus no claim to free use of it. And in any case, were wolves convinced to be domesticated into dogs? Inferior creatures are rightfully put into service, not solicited for their service. Even you don't disagree on that principle. You just disagree on which creatures belong in the category.
Is not letting dogs run around pooping on everything and instead putting them on leashes "slavery"? How about children not being allowed to drive? Or people with dementia being put into homes? Diminished faculties = diminished freedoms.
Many but by no means all or even necessarily the majority. 8chan's /pol/ board, for those who are too right-wing for 4chan's /pol/, is proclaimed as being "Where lolis are free speech and Hitler did nothing wrong" (and there are still of course plenty of cunny fans on 4chan's /pol/ too). I think only someone with little exposure to imageboard culture could think as you do.
And of course our ideology is totally socially rejected. (Personally I am not a "social reject" as I reserve displaying my power level for when it is safe and I assume this is true of most of my fellows.) But that's a good thing, as we live in the most effete, feminized, spiritually/physically weak, and matriarchal time/society in human history.
So for our ideology to be the most rejected in this time period/society and the most contrary to its orthodoxy must also mean that it is the ideology that is most representative of powerful, vigorously masculine thought. This doesn't make our triumph inevitable, but, given the clear statistical pattern of which tendency has most dominated history, it does make it far more likely that our enemies are a temporary anomaly, a statistical irregularity that will return to baseline, than us.
What a wild ride this conversation took. I’m curious, what makes you a lion instead of a bug?
Nothing makes me a lion (as there are basically no true lions in our present society, except maybe at zoos).
But what gives me perhaps the soul of a lion? A dream. Dreams are the essence of any man's soul.
Even a bug can have the soul of a lion if he accepts that he might be squashed by an actual lion (which is not to say he must desire it, nor that any lion should do so) and boldly endeavors with vitality anyway. (Of course we don't see many such valiant bugs these days either, at least not smart ones who are willing to reveal themselves openly, as they generally either just get ripped apart by their fellow bugs or killed by a massive cybernetic psyop military-industrial-"intelligence" globohomo fly swatter, miserable ends which confer little dignity beyond the trifle of martyrdom to meet.)
Then again a bug who acts this way is not really much of a bug anymore either. They are more like a lion cub or perhaps a proud house cat, depending on their trajectory. And, contrary to you perhaps thinking now that I'm some sort of "dog eat dog" or "survival of the fittest" Darwinian, I do think that creatures of different levels of strength can and should cooperate. (This is in fact one of the core principles of fascism: the elimination of class war via the cooperation of all classes.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link