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 -
Scott has a new post on AI and money in politics. I'd like to take a step back and talk about how we got here.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that there are essentially no constitutional limits on political spending and advertising. At the time, it was widely anticipated that this would turn American politics into the wild west of corruption, crony capitalism, and corporate propaganda. But in the years after the decision, the feared corporate catastrophe failed to materialize. Trump didn't win in 2016 because of corporate support. In the primary, he bragged that he was self-funding his campaign and so wasn't beholden to special interests. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders got a lot of milage out of constantly reminding people that he didn't have a SuperPac.
In 2019, Scott wrote the prophetic Too Much Dark Money in Almonds, in which he pointed out that wealthy actors are probably underspending on politics and then brainstormed ways to turn money into political influence. By 2022, we started to see serious attempts at using previously-unheard-of amounts of money to systematically affect the political process. Sam Bankman-Fried was too-clever-by-half donating money he didn't technically own, but Elon Musk's aquisition of Twitter ended wokeness overnight and likely won Trump the 2024 election. If Scott is to be believed, the cryptocurrency and AI industries are well on their way to fulfilling SBF's dream of rooting the state.
Why did it take 10+ years for this to happen? My hypothesis: cultural inertia (and shame).
Despite being purported as the main beneficiaries of Citizens United, big corporations weren't really trying to spend large sums of money on politics. Exxon Mobil didn't park an oil tanker full of cash in the Chesapeake waiting for the signal to shower Washington in oil money as part of their dastardly plan. That just wasn't how buisinesses operated. It took time to develop both a theoretical framework for how to turn an abritrarily large amount of money into political power (it's a lot more complicated than simply buying ads), and to develop a philosophical framework for why this isn't cartoonishly evil.
I think a big reason money in politics didn't manifest the way the doomers predicted is because money in politics just isn't that effective when employed the way envisioned by the doomers. Taking out hundreds of hours of ads just doesn't move the needle all that much. Instead, as Elon showed, what actually matters is institutions. Buying twitter isn't really something exxon or disney is realistically going to do.
The question is, for political purposes, is any of this affordable? Can you buy Harvard and the rest of the Ivy league? Probably not. Can you buy disney, youtube, etc? For most people, the answer is going to be no. And even if you can, like Bezos did with the Washington Times*, you'll discover your ability to influence the influence your institution wields is still limited by staff.
Edit: Meant the Post.
You could buy an astroturfing campaign.
I sometimes wonder why this isn't more common. It should be very cost-effective, given how few people participate in online discourse, social-desirability bias, and crowd behavior dynamics mean you only need ~5% of that small minority to start forming consensus around something.
You could, with a small team and a stock of authentic-looking sockpuppet accounts, own the reaction comments around some political podcast, the chat for popular streamers, the topics in political subreddits, etc. For a pittance in paid subscriptions to influential writers, you could maybe even turn the direction of their output - audience capture is a thing.
Astroturfing doesn't work, the ground withers if theres no traction. No amount of leftist 'trans women are women' in vidya or policy or media made trannies more popular, the only thing that made trannies popular was bailey jay for a brief while in the mid 2010s.
Influential writers lose influence when they start pushing stupid points, Jordan Peterson went downhill when he became weird lobster medicine man, Ibram X Kendi and all the antiracism shills died when the thermostatic moment passed and you didn't get cancelled for not doing the public prayers.
Creators botting up their numbers lose real humans because real humans aren't sheep just following a flock, we don't even care about comments unless we're validating our own biases. Left wing news media are the ones that curtailed all their comment sections, right wing media all let their comment sections run free. Astroturfing comments to talk about how Mirpuris aren't actually grooming kids and its actually white pedos largely responsible for CSE doesn't make people go 'oh wow thats true I was just being racist' it makes people go 'fuck these gaslighters'.
Astroturfing is easy to blame for outcomes because it externalizes blame - we don't need to change we just need to stop the evil baddies from doing their bad thing and our Good Easy Moral Message will come forth! Staying the path is easy if you don't actually care about how destroyed your entire reputation is on the path.
Just when did JBP become this? This seems more like a caricature by ignorant detractors rather than an earnest condensation of what he espouses. JBP always used serotonin in lobsters to exemplify how despite 500 million years of divergent evolution, we still share a lot of psychological commonality in the function of serotonin in how we process defeat and dominance.
The only woo he pushes is that carnivore diet, but considering the historically unreliable and still indecisive state of nutrition science, I don't believe this and other theory about ketogenic diets have been proven to be ineffective.
As soon as offputting woke types stopped going on live TV debates against him, the guy pretty much ran out of anything interesting or new to say. You can talk about bible metaphors on Joe Rogan only so many times. Also didn’t the guy go insane at some point?
The TV debates are what's really boring. His interesting discussion is in psychology. What I find most fascinating are his ideas of human perception, like such relating to the orienting reflex with error detection and novelty in the environment; how our value judgements shape our cognition not only in the decision making domain but in the very way that we perceive the world; and him likening such to modern AI where bottom-up approaches have triumphed over top-down manual programming of structure into ANNs because of the frame problem and such, where AI can't even see the toy environment without integrating an unexpectedly massive amount of information. I also find his ideas about the useful information narratives and archetypes to be interesting and gets me thinking about why humans find stories so entertaining in the first place.
As for going insane, that just sounds like more gossip by detractors. He did have his run-in with benzos, which seems more like an error with the medical establishment not properly advertising the risk of physical dependency that prescription use can induce. Then he tried to detox by putting himself into a coma in Russia which was also a pretty big error, and he seemed cognitively devastated for a little while, but his slump was nothing I'd say resembled insanity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Now that's a name I haven't heard for a LOOONG time, a more recent example would be Sarina Valentina (pre-bogging) and Natalie Mars. Funny enough, all three were active posters on 4chan.
Anything that makes my dick hard is a woman. The failure of the modern trans movement is to have ugly failed men be the face of the movement instead of fuckable femboys. Get the trans movement to be astolfo crossplayers, and schedule an anime cosplay competition at the same time as the NRC. Republicans will be singing the tune of femboy superiority in no time.
The time that far right Polish politician posed for a photo holding a femboy at a cosplay convention.
More options
Context Copy link
“Gentlemen, is it gay to fuck another dude?” is a question that no amount of philosophizing can answer satisfactorily for a certain segment of the population.
The most impressive part is reaching that philosophical question within 5 subcomments after starting on the topic of money in politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the one hand, feminism is generally hostile to the category of strategy you're suggesting, if it's too obvious. And on the other hand, there's right-wing adversarial selection of ugly failed men to publicly pin to the movement.
Sailers law of female journalism taken one step further to societal engineering? I can accept that. Feminists wanting ugly women to be social currency to enhance their own position is logically consistent with pushing disgusting unwomen into the spotlight. Agreed re the right wingers highlighting every bad example that will exist regardless of the supply of submissive and breedable femboys, but frankly that's still the fault of the trannies for pushing rupaul rejects as their modal representation.
... dare I ask?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can't tell if you're joking or serious, but hard disagree. It's just homosexuality with better costumes. I think the particular modus you are describing is the method of grabbing 'feminine' status/power to avoid a low status position. I honestly read it the same way as those fitness videos where the now muscular bro lambasts their previous scrawny self.
Beware The Femboy Of One Study.
"Traps are gay" is the ultimate Scissor statement. The finest minds of our generation have debated this question endlessly without coming to a consensus. To some, it is clear that literally fucking a man must be gay, regardless of rationalizations. To others, it is equally obvious that, since they are straight, anything that can make them hard is a woman. And to a third group, it depends on the situation.
I'm firmly on the side that liking traps is not gay. We know what gay hentai aimed at actually gay men looks like, and it is completely different from trap hentai which is instead aimed at straight men. And, for that matter, both are completely different from gay erotica aimed at straight women.
I want to fuck Astolfo up the ass. That doesn't make me gay, that makes me straight, because only a straight man would be attracted to a trap character like Astolfo from Fate. Real gay men are not attracted to traps; they are attracted to beefcake characters like Endeavor from My Hero Academia. And women are attracted to aloof, abussive pretty boys like Sasuke from Naruto.
More options
Context Copy link
The eternal question: Are Traps Gay?
I don't know, but Brigitte Lin was amazing in Swordsman II and The East is Red (which I have only seen in terribly subtitled and even more terribly edited versions ages ago). She's playing a man who was turned into a woman via magical martial arts techniques, so she's attracting both male and female lovers.
More options
Context Copy link
That link has it behind a paywall, but relying on surveys is never strong evidence in my opinion. If arousal pattern is just attraction to the female form, I have no doubt GAMPs will say they're not-homosexual.
More options
Context Copy link
It's fairly obvious from cultures where ladyboys are a thing (most notoriously, Thailand) that the men who fuck ladyboys are not gay.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To take a different approach if you're really into dudes, find them totally interesting, fascinating, say you have a non-trivial oriented preference. Finding out a person you thought was a dude, actually isn't, means you lose interest regardless of their appearance.
Yeah, about that. Also, tomboys in general.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean the converse can be true? There was this dude I found totally cool and chill and when I discovered he was a girl I totally got the hots for her. Didn't do anything because I was a socially awkward dweeb and also raised not to be a creep but there is something primal about male female dynamics that does get activated when the knowledge is instantiated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is the literal opposite of true. It made them more popular in terms of more people identifying as trans, and seeking referrals for medicalization, it made the more popular in terms ot vast swathes of society seeing it as fine and normal, it made them more popular of institutions catering to their every demand. They were so popular that it took absurd transgressions for the tide to change, and that my prediction that it is about, from a few years ago, was seen as somewhat unhinged. Even now that the position that we want too far with the trans thing is more mainstream, we're still nowhere near back to it's levels of popularity from 10-15 years ago.
A) You're 100% right and I'm downplaying astroturfings role in creating a massive problem that I am dismissing out of hand because my own cultural circle smacks down tranny agitprop so I am, despite my presence on this board, still unaware of the depth of the rot that you guys are experiencing.
B) I'm still right that astroturfing didn't move the popular needle. It didn't make trannies popular generally it made autogynephiliacs and hormonal teenagers and mentally weak people latch onto a thermostatically salient expression of individuated maladaptations. I maintain that ROGD is the primary effector for trannification of teenage girls, and that it isn't trans agitprop that made them go one way but just idiotic teens (I realize this invalidates my statement about people not being sheep, but I thread this needle by not treating teenagers as people). Parsing the specific numbers is immaterial for whether astroturfing moved trannifycation or if trannyfication was just the latest means of Rebelling Against The System, but I maintain that the astroturfing didn't move where it needed to: the apolitical normie. Screeching slacktivists filling feeds with astroturfed agitprop talk to each other, and you can replace trannies with migrants with late term abortion or whatever cause celebre that group is predisposed to cloister around to begin with.
So, I am prepared to be wrong. I am of the belief that peoples personal beliefs are individuated and not subject to change just based on a tiktok feed telling them endlessly that Hasan Piker didn't zap his doggo so MAGA is actually evil or whatever botted message is being pumped out. The Internet Research Agency in Russia isn't inventing anti migrant sentiment out of thin air, its merely pouring gasoline onto a simmering fire. Astroturfing is pictures of flames for people to get shocked over, and maybe its fuel, but its not heat.
I agree and disagree at the same time. Once you reach critical mass, social contagion is probably the mechanism with the strongest effect, but there's usually a ground zero. The illustrative anecdote / analogy that goes around is anorexia. Apparently in Korea (I think) it was literally unheard of until some newspaper covered the cases in America, and then suddenly they had an epidemic.
I mean, look, we still exist within the bounds of the physical universe. Le Rationalists love acting like everything is an organic process that is essentially impossible to influence top-down, and Social Constructivists love to act like with enough propaganda they could literally warp time and space, but I think there's a happy middle. You can push the boundaries quite far, but at some point reality will start reasserting itself, and that point is probably somewhere far before sending rapists to female prisons, because they declared themselves to be a pretty little princess.
Those girls would have latched onto something else were it not for trans as a means of coping with the difficulty of being a teenager. These girls would have been cutting and starving themselves if their first reference point was a Sandman or a 90s heroin chic comic in the library.
As much as the real world exists we do live in Modern Times where wordcel smartypants get to distort the presentation beyond our eyes. A teenage boy in Wyoming who can't put on muscle and hates herding will latch onto the trans agitprop from Desmond Is Amazing stans, while his father will choke down Tucker Carlson slop about Portland being a drug infested hellhole overrun by diseased immigrants. Wordcels dictate the terms when reality assertion isn't proximate but when the agitators enter real world suddenly their fancy words become just hot air if they can't match the reality they've been asserting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not going to say it doesn't work, but robbing your movement of authenticity by commanding it from the top-down is a tactical play for long-term strategic disadvantage. Most reactionaries have accepted that gay marriage is beyond the reach of even the most right-wing of policy while trans is an issue they can hammer forever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link