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?

I think the incel movement is just a 'canary down the coal mine' for society in general with regards to how modern culture and technology is hampering people from getting their basic needs met.

While there is an argument that there were always socially inept young men who were unable to find romantic partners, I think that the modern western world has created unique challenges that didn't exist in prior generations (such as social media and downstream expectations on what a male partner should be).

It's pretty straightforward to me that the mainstream progressive view is that less empathy should be accorded to the outgroup (western incels) than fargroups (ethnic immigrants) with the same issue (finding female partners in the West).

I don't have any real solutions to this issue, but I hope society affords more empathy to incels moving forward and has the foresight to address the root societal, cultural and technological causes preventing those men (and women) from finding happiness. Touch, empathy, acceptance and love are basic human needs. Society would be much better off if incels had those needs met in terms of productivity via enfranchisement, less culture warring and societal friction and that's before you get to basic human kindness and decency in helping and accepting the unloved.

Instead we get people treating them like atomised terrorists and a threat that needs to be crushed. My time observing the culture war makes me think that their treatment will get worse before it gets better.

Society would be much better off if incels had those needs met in terms of productivity via enfranchisement, less culture warring and societal friction and that's before you get to basic human kindness and decency in helping and accepting the unloved.

I think this is far from a sure thing.

To meet the needs of an incel, a woman must throw herself on the sword and date a man who she doesn't want to (because if she did want to date him, he wouldn't be an incel). You can't meet the needs of incels without making women unhappy, and vice-versa. Western society currently prefers to side with making women happy on that dilemma; compelled arranged marriage in rural India society prefers to side with making incels happy on that dilemma. If we could do a ceteris paribus controlling for wealth, would Indian compelled marriage really lead to "society being better off" than Western female profligacy?

I think yes, because I suspect that men produce more net social benefit when happy than women do, but I recognise that there is a trade-off being made here and it's not a slam-dunk in favour of men.

needs of incels

But does an incel need sexual success (with the right woman, in the right way, with the right conditions etc.) in order to be happy? They certainly express a strong desire for such an experience, but is it necessary for their happiness? Obviously it isn't sufficient - there are millions of depressed people who are not incels - but I'm not even convinced that it is necessary, any more than I am convinced that e.g. a trans person needs everyone to affirm their self-identified gender in order to be happy or that a devout Muslim needs everyone to be a Muslim in order to be happy. These are just strong preferences that people have, and adults (and even many children, at least beyond a certain age) are perfectly capable of being happy despite unsatisfied strong preferences.

Strictly speaking, no one "needs" much of anything to be happy, which seems to be as much a function of life meeting your expectations as anything. Lower expectations enough, and happiness is always within reach: you can be a hermit in the woods eating the bark from trees and be happy.

But that stance can be applied to any social issue: at least in Western societies, nearly every political project isn't strictly necessary for happiness. And that's not a bad thing, as we're far richer than any society throughout history.

To focus on incels in particular, how realistic is it to have them drop their hopes of sex and (more importantly) pair bonding? To me, it seems extraordinarily unlikely they'll be able to drop those things, and to the extent that it is possible at scale, it'll be more through the distraction of porn/drugs/vidya than through achieving some kind of Buddhist relinquishment of all earthly desires.

Strictly speaking, no one "needs" much of anything to be happy, which seems to be as much a function of life meeting your expectations as anything. Lower expectations enough

I agree up to "expectations". This is a significantly ambiguous phrase in this context. I might "expect" X in the sense that I hope that it will happen. Alternatively, I might "expect" X in the sense that I think that other people (or God, or fate, or whatever) is obliged to give it to me. Or that the world is an unfair place if I can't have X. The latter sense is the type of expectation that causes most anger, as well as a lot of unhappiness.

And I would say that happiness, in general, comes from one's own activity and its relation to one's experiences, rather than meeting expectations (in either sense) as such. Our mental reward system encourages us when we are doing actions that are subjectively meaningful: they are conducive towards a desired goal. Again, this is one sense in which incels shoot themselves in the foot: most of the happiness that you can have from sex comes from the pursuit, not the act itself.

Of course, if they say "I'm no good unless I'm having sex, and with the right sort of context, and with the right sort of person... etc. etc.", then they might feel temporarily better after boosting their egos by having sex under the right conditions. But what then? Pretty soon, they'd find some other noose to hang themselves with. "I'm no good unless my partner only has sex with me, and only thinks about sex with me" or "I'm no good unless I'm having sex with lots of different women" or "I'm no good unless I'm levelling up to a more attractive woman" etc. etc.

The same pattern occurs with people who have anxiety. Deal with one source of danger and what then? There's always some risk in life to be anxious about. Only once the delusion "I must be safe" is addressed can someone be consistently free of anxiety.

Similarly, only once incels are free of delusions like "I need to do/be/have certain things in order to be happy" will they be free of their unhappiness, anger, and depression. And like everyone else, they won't be free 100% of the time, but that's fine - nobody needs to be happy all the time to live a good life. Indeed, there are many times (bereavement, disappointment, combat etc.) when unhappy emotions are perfectly rational and helpful.

how realistic is it to have them drop their hopes of sex

I wouldn't suggest this at all. There is a huge difference between hoping for X and thinking that you need X.

Personally, I only started getting laid once I stopped thinking that I needed to get laid, and instead thinking "Wow, I really want to get laid!" I suspect that pretty much all incels would find the same thing happened to them, sooner or later.

As for happiness, I don't think that there's a political obligation upon others to make a person happy, though you might argue that there's an obligation to create a society where that person could live a happy and fulfilling life, if they worked their ass at it. I'm not convinced that incels don't already live in such a society. And I'm not saying that they are all lazy - just possessed by a dangerous illusion that they need sex to be happy. Ironically, if they were free of that delusion, they'd be more likely to get sex. Neediness is not attractive, at least to people with whom you'd actually want to be in a relationship...

To meet the needs of an incel, a woman must throw herself on the sword and date a man who she doesn't want to (because if she did want to date him, he wouldn't be an incel). You can't meet the needs of incels

There are other options, such as platonic acceptance and friendship of incels, as well as encouragement of incels to use traditional techniques of physical fitness, grooming, fashion improvement and socialisation via meetups and the like. Not all can be saved, but I'm pretty sure a significant percentage can be. It probably starts with outreach and acknowledgement of the structural difficulties of dating in the modern world, rather than hyperagentic victim blaming.

getting their basic needs met

But love is not an adult human need. A baby will die if nobody cares for it, but incels aren't babies. At their best, AFAICT, they are possessed by a powerful false belief that they aren't loved if they don't get sex from (the right kind of) woman, and that the world is awful if they aren't loved.

So inceldom has a lot to do with neediness, but not to do with basic needs. Just because someone is needy, it doesn't mean that any of their needs (for survival, happiness, a meaningful life etc.) is not being met.

But love is not an adult human need.

Did you miss that part where some identities entirely built on (specific type of) sex and love have huge role in current politics?

No, I noticed them.

Note that "X has a right to pursue Y" is not the same as "X needs Y." For example, there is a (defeasible) right of sane and non-criminal adult citizens to vote, but adults don't need to vote in order to be happy, live meaningful lives etc.

The identity is central struggle; we say "gays" instead of "people with homosexuality" and the narrative was if we don't allow Y, then we are depriving X of something very important.

Yes, but that's still compatible with love not being an adult need. That something is very important doesn't mean that it's a need for happiness, life, or meaning.

Of course, I have no doubt that there are plenty of gay people with the delusion that they need love (everyone gets afflicted by this delusion, at least some of the time, some moreso than others) and like incels they are characterised by neediness. I've known gay people like that, just as I've known incels. Like incels, they would ironically have a much better shot at getting what they want if they started thinking of love as something that they strongly want rather than something they need. A strong desire is motivating and in the case of love can lead to amazing things from people. It can motivate action in the pursuit of a goal. A perceived "need" tends to lead to anger, depression, and unattractive behaviours. It tends to inhibit people from useful actions. And I don't mean "shower and smile" - I acknowledge that most incels would have to work very hard and tolerate a lot of frustration in order to find a loving relationship. I know I did.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs which has wide recognition in psychological circles has love & belonging as a need. Maslow is not without criticism though and basic physiological and safety needs rank higher.

I would also argue that its kind of a trope that incels only want sex from attractive women, are therefore voluntarily choosing celibacy, and thus deserve to be maligned.

I would also argue that its kind of a trope that incels only want sex from attractive women, are therefore voluntarily choosing celibacy, and thus deserve to be maligned.

My usual rejoinder to the "just lower your standards bro, then you'll have loads of partners to pick from" argument is that is is isomorphic with "just become gay bro, then you'll have loads of partners to pick from".

A man can't just choose to be physically attracted to a 200 pound heifer femcel and thereby mutually annihilate the incel-femcel pair, any more than he can choose to suddenly like male on male sodomy.

Another argument is that it's simply based on false assumptions that men and women are equally picky, equally amorous and equally able to satisfy one another.

There's no reason to believe any of those things.

But above, you say that Indian compelled marriage would make incels happy. What if an incel gets paired with a woman he isn't attracted to? Now you've put him in a position where he can't even (within social norms) "shower and smile" in order to attract a woman that he likes.

I agree. I'm just against the idea that incels on average are against hooking up with average or mildly cute girls and are holding out for 7+/10's because they deserve it.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs which has wide recognition in psychological circles has love & belonging as a need. Maslow is not without criticism though and basic physiological and safety needs rank higher.

I think that even psychologists who think that Maslow's conjectures will some day be vindicated by evidence are embarassed by that particular part of it.

It's plausible that humans need to love things in order to achieve the highest forms of happiness, but loving things and being loved by people and having sex with other people are three different things.

If most incels would be willing to have sex with women that they aren't attracted to, just to get sex, then they are even more deluded than I thought.

Society would be much better off if incels had those needs met in terms of productivity via enfranchisement, less culture warring and societal friction and that's before you get to basic human kindness and decency in helping and accepting the unloved.

I agree. It's like that "red pill manosphere alpha male when he gets an ounce of female attention" meme. Many of them aren't just unable to find a female partner, they're unable to make and maintain normal companionships with other males. It may be difficult for us to fathom, but I personally know a few, it's always the simple gestures that make their days, like wishing them on birthdays/Christmas/New Years, sending a text checking up on them when they're sick, asking how their job interview went, etc. Mundane things, but ones that don't exist in their lives because they aren't a part of anyone else's. They can disappear tomorrow and quite literally no one will notice, let alone care. They're basically like ghosts, they exist and at the same time, they don't exist. That's a pretty crippling thought, and tragic if true. And so to them, someone reaching out to them and giving them their time is affirmation that they aren't ghosts and that someone does give enough of a damn. The solution "sounds" simple enough, more empathy and less shaming. Instead, we confirm their worst paranoia about society and probably resuscitate any bad experiences that they may have from high school, the last social landscape they were in.