site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not a good day for Mr. Tate Andrew Tate, Brother Tristan arrested amid human trafficking probe

Andrew Tate and his brother have been arrested and led away in cuffs after their luxury Romanian mansion was raided by police.

The divisive influencer, referred to by his fans as ‘Top G’, and his brother Tristan are being quizzed over human trafficking allegations, according to local reports.

The pair have reportedly been under investigation for the alleged kidnapping of two young women in their villa in the town of Voluntari.

Their home was raided by the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism in Bucharest earlier today, reports Libertatea.

The brothers were issued warrants in relation to forming an organized criminal group, international human trafficking, and rape.

I am skeptical. This does not make sense from a risk vs. reward perspective. Presumably their hustler university program and other businesses provide plenty of legal revenue; why engage in such unnecessary risk? Romania's criminal justice system probably does not have the same requirement of burden of proof as in the US.

Lack of good male role models/instructionals in the field of 'how to get bitches' leads to the Tates of the world getting pre-eminence since they're atleast offering something positive and actionable.

Like I'm not a huge fan of Jordan Peterson but a lot of the critics of his side of the manosphere just don't acknowledge how little the current left-dominated media really attempts to set men up to be successful or upwardly mobile. Tate might be a cartoon character but atleast he's something.

And that IMO is the biggest problem with the manosphere - it doesn't offer you solutions to your problems, but makes you feel good for having problems. And of course, it also doesn't take away from the fact that, as much as feminists hate them, confident and materially successful men do rank very high in the sexual market. That's why guys like Tate can say can go as far enough as they did and not face any consequences.

The thing is, as with a lot of social problems these days, the solutions are all coup-complete.

You can't make the institutions that would allow boys to grow into men and negotiate high trust relationships with the opposite sex, those have all been destroyed on purpose by the powers that be, and as they dance on their graves they will pounce on any burgeoning attempt at creating such things again.

The political formula of the current ruling class requires any such things be crushed, so even if they didn't want men to be so aimless (and they do complain about it in those silly "where have all the good men gone" articles) they are duty bound to oppose any solutions.

Hence all you end up with is levels of cynicism reminiscent of Russian anarchism and its assorted bands of crooks, psychopaths and false prophets.

those have all been destroyed on purpose by the powers that be, and as they dance on their graves they will pounce on any burgeoning attempt at creating such things again.

Why do you say it's on purpose? Now I do agree the breakdown of families and fertility rates, high costs of education, housing crisis, etc., did demoralise many young men and true enough, the hard left seems to be gleeful about it. But is there any evidence that this is deliberately induced by the elite?

Why do you say it's on purpose?

Because those are declared aims of (some of) the Enlightenment and its litany of successors. From Rousseau to Engels to Dworkin to Haraway. The destruction of family, sex and the related social institutions isn't some accident, it's controlled demolition. In a similar fate to nation, religion and other such vestiges of premodern power.

Chernyshevsky didn't say "people will be happy when there will be neither women nor men" out of nothing. There is a clear opposition between human nature and the modern project and any attempt to roll back the decay of the institutions that shore up the former would go against the project that gives its very legitimacy to the modern ruling class: progress and the promise of ultimate equality between minds detached from physical constraints.

Men can't have their men's club because that would be reaction, fascism, patriarchy, or any of the other names given to people who attempted to stop the bulldozer or turn it back.

If you want names and faces you can get your fill from the usual suspects, but the Pritzker and Soros didn't start this. They're just the current face of a pebble that's been running down this hill for centuries now.