site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Last week, Luke Pollard, the UK Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, yet again called for a "national incel strategy". According to him, it's vital that we do this to prevent another "incel terror attack" like the Keyham shootings.

I think the first time I actually heard the word was around the time Todd Phillips' Joker had released. What I don't understand is this extreme alarmism of progressives surrounding incels, when they say the exact opposite of Islamist terrorism. An internet subculture of terminally online, socially disabled men who find themselves unable to order a Big Mac without feeling butterflies in their stomachs are such a big threat to our society that we need a national strategy to combat them? This to me seems like it's completely tarred by alarmism surrounding white supremacy and racial animosity. Granted, incels do hold on to ethno-supremacist views, such fringe ideologies always find purchase among those on... the fringes of society, often young, single men with no social life and no job/ a dead end job and having nothing to lose. They spew all the vitriol online because they tend to be non-confrontational in real life, they might claim to support violence but almost never have the stomach to commit violence themselves. They've locked themselves inside their heads, no one's allowed inside and they view the world, society and women through a tiny keyhole into the sewer that is the most toxic spaces on the internet. They aren't hurting anyone but themselves. But why are the "basement dwelling gamur incels" among the most reviled subgroups in the culture war? Is it simply because they spew the most bile against every 'vulnerable' demographic (women, minorities, LGBTs) online?

It's slightly amusing that the same people who are always calling for nuance (at least when it favors them) seem to have concluded that incels are what they've been searching for for so long - white right-wing terrorists. I did a course on terrorism - the teacher was practically scrambling to put right-wing terrorism up with Islamic terrorism despite obviously being puny in comparison. Incels were mentioned too, they got half a week of discussion mostly about the issue of categorizing them, along with school shooters. 9/11 killed a majority of terrorism victims in the US for the last 30 years - McVeigh was a distant second place. And there is no white ISIS, no Taliban, Al Qaeda, no proper intensive insurgencies...

Anyway, incels are a diverse group! If you go on incels wiki, something they talk about is 'just be white' or JBW where ricecels, blackcels, currycels all conclude that white men are advantaged in world dating markets. Apparently all you need to do if you're white is go to South East Asia and you'll easily find a gf. According to their statistics, Asians are significantly overrepresented in the incel community in the West, relative to their share of the population.

I did a course on terrorism - the teacher was practically scrambling to put right-wing terrorism up with Islamic terrorism despite obviously being puny in comparison.

I'm tempted to do an effort post on this as its somewhat related to my subject matter expertise. The short version is that western security services are (open source) reporting a rise in 'right wing' extremism, even as Islamism and foreign interference/espionage from enemies of the west remain larger threats. Past (brief) exposure to the employees of such services makes me think that unlike most of the rest of government (who are left leaning in their politics), they are highly professional and centrist in their political views. Basically the type of people you would want in those roles.

But there are people outside of the services themselves who wish to emphasise the rise of 'right wing extremism' for ideological reasons. I think there is a venn diagram overlap between incels/white nationalists/'right wing' extremists that some are trying to exploit by equivocating between the groups and then 'chinese robber'ing them when mass shootings and the like occur.

I also think the root causes growing those groups are similar; namely increased competition due to immigration to prop up falling birth rates in the West (and downstream ethnic tension and decay of social trust), Social media and the domination of mainstream media by left-wing political advocacy (and downstream alienation of young men who can't meet the ideal, or those with right wing political views).

It would be really great to see some sort of government level examination in the west (and in my wildest dreams actual treatment) of the root causes above, but I haven't seen any real political will to do so. I think in general its just full steam ahead on importing fungible economic units and demonization of anyone that questions the consequences.

Interesting. I'd like to see that post!

I think society has basically disintegrated - sub 2.0 fertility means our civilization is unsustainable. You can bring in immigrants but that won't fix the root cause, either they'll assimilate and start aging or you'll have a separate society in your country. Our civilization is deeply broken if it can't meet the most vital metric of sustainability, it is only enormous tailwinds in technology and wealth that are propping it up. Of course there will be massive and growing social problems, epidemics of suicide, mass shootings, drug addiction and especially terrorism.

Imagine a patient in a hospital who eats ravenously. Six meals a day plus dessert - no exercise. And yet they're losing weight, you can see their ribs more and more! They'd have to be seriously sick, you'd imagine dozens of doctors crowding around this metabolic mystery. That's us. Somehow our culture, incentives and economies are so perversely broken that despite all this wealth we're going extinct. Japan and South Korea first, then Southern Europe...

I know it's not a new insight, but even if we assume tfr=1.5, in 200 years there will still be over 20 million humans living in the current territory of the United States. Not quite extinct, and that's ignoring pro-natalists like the Amish, who are likely to become very relevant at some point.

IMO declining populations are mostly a problem in that they're inherently deflationary, and we don't know how to do broad prosperity without growth.