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 -
Exploits it how, exactly? And what makes you think such a figure — with a minority of democratic support, and strong institutional opposition — wouldn't just end up shut out and shut down?
"To the disaffected, lonely men listening now, I promise I will stop the flow of tax dollars out of your pockets to programs that disproportionately benefit single mothers and childless girlbosses.
I will aggressively punish institutionalized discrimination against males at every level, and seek removal of any gender or other quotas that undermine meritocratic promotion or allow your salary to be undercut and your career derailed.
I will create large tax credit incentives for men who get married, hold down a job, and are raising children, and promote strong, male-led households where he can be the primary breadwinner without needing a second job or for the wife to work full time."
Or if you want a really simple one: "Men, I'm going to close off all non-skilled immigration except for attractive, fertile young women, and due to the looming crisis of declining birthrates we will issue emergency visas and expedited citizenship paths to any such women who get married and bear at least 2 kids."
Basically actually propose solutions, viable or not, that address the actual anxieties and misgivings that men have been expressing, and make them feel like they've got some investment in the movement.
Note that there is no real mainstream political figure, ANYWHERE, in ANY country that is able to make these sort of statements. Which has led to the current issue. Women's issues are central in the Overton Window, its impossible to even elevate male concerns to the point where they're discussed seriously.
By whom. They keep trying to do that to Andrew Tate, he still has a voice and following.
Charlie Kirk was talking about these sort of issues until he died.
Matt Walsh brings these issues up too and he's still got a large following.
The only option they'd have is arresting them and that'd probably not work out for them unless the person in question was actually trying to get seriously militant/violent.
And if this person is J.D. Vance, how the hell do you expect them to 'shut out' the sitting Vice President of the United States.
This is one I'm surprised I haven't seen mooted. Making it easier for passport bros to import wives seems like an easy stink bomb for the Trump admin to throw into the Democratic coalition, it would almost certainly cause them to chase their tails for months.
I would find the "Waifu Importation Bill" hilarious, but how exactly would they ensure "attractive and fertile"? Will there be a panel judging their attractiveness (no doubt hosted by the President himself), rejecting anyone who scores below a 6?
Of course it would also be hilarious to see this backfire when a flood of Muslim women arrives completely on board with the "get married and have at least two children" plan.
How is that "backfiring"?
I think the implication is that they arrive and marry Muslim men, have Muslim kids and engage in demographic replacement of the native western population.
A real monkey's paw.
Unless this idea includes legalizing polygamy, it's probably not going to be an issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Presumably by market forces, if you're making it easier to bring in your fiancee. A guy isn't going to bring in a woman he doesn't want to sleep with. Fertile is kind of a black box, but there's no reason to think it wouldn't lead to more children, especially if you tie citizenship to children. Maybe a structure where green cards are easy to get for your gf, and your gf gets citizenship once you have kids?
I do think a very easy button to press is the au pair program. Make it mega easy and cheap to import girls between the age of 17 and 30 who want to do childcare. Besides the help they'd give current parents, it's a pretty good bet that twenty-somethings who like kids enough to nanny wouldn't mind having a few.
These programs would be obviously good, would increase immigration (which Democrats are bad at saying is ever bad), and are easy to bias on sex (au pair's are female, make citizenship for mother's of children but not fathers). Trump is at his best when he gets to the left of the Dems, they tie themselves in knots and look like fools.
Who's afraid of big bad burqa? A flood of pretty Persian or Lebanese girls with engineering degrees who want to marry a soulful white boy and raise kids here doesn't offend me one bit. I may be biased...
More options
Context Copy link
I would watch that tv show.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the beauty of male sexual preference; men find 80%+ of fertile-age females attractive. Simply setting a limit between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five would ensure that the supermajority of women imported under this program would be attractive with no other filter needed.
More than 20% of fertile-age females in the US, at least, are obese, so I question whatever survey you're using this time. Or did it classify "would fuck" the same as "attractive"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure there is; you need only look north. That won't get you into political power in that country for reasons that have a lot to do with geography, but at least the solvent half of the country will vote for you.
I have no idea to whom you are referring; could you please speak more plainly?
I'm not OP, but here's my reading.
Look north - Canada
Geography - something something Canadian shield something something resource extractions
Solvent half - Alberta, resource extraction
I got that; I just thought @ThisIsSin must be referring to some specific public figure there. Now that you point it out, I suppose he's saying that you could get away with making these arguments in Canada, and at least get Alberta voting for you, if not anywhere else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would like to see that happen, but I'm dubious for a couple of reasons. First, we've set up our economies so that isn't really a runner, anymore. Unionised jobs which did provide good benefits and you could be the single breadwinner became corrupt and atrophied (see the fairly recent example of the longshoremen, for one). Industries collapsed during the 80s and the salvation was to outsource to cheaper labour and resources abroad, and to get more women into the workforce.
Second, a strong male-led household can be one where the man runs them into debt and other problems, or where the ostensible male head is weak and incapable. To work at its best, marriage should be a partnership. "This happens because I say so" can only work where "I say so" is reasonable and not "I've decided to take out loans, mortgage the house, and put all our savings into this sure thing a guy told me about, and if you don't like it, here's a black eye for you".
I simply suggest this is not a common scenario, at least not in the relatively recent past.
And even if it were, it would require a strong male-lad society to police and punish such actors anyway. There's no scenario where "women can veto any given decision and husband has no authority to limit her" leads to overall superior outcomes.
The current experiment where women are allowed almost unfettered decision-making within a marriage hasn't really worked better for anyone, by most accounts.
I think "we live in a globalized world and everyone is aggressively sorted according to their skills and IQ" covers a lot of the issue.
If you're a low-productivity worker, then you're competing against cheap labor from around the globe. If you're a high-skill, high productivity worker you can still do well, but you have to go where the opportunities are. And then you'll be most likely locked into a high-stakes, high competitiveness industry with little margin for error and high demands on your time and performance. Which you will be compensated for, but which can he lost in short order if you screw up.
NOBODY seems to have a viable plan to 'ensure' the creation of stable, high-paying jobs which don't demand endless hours of work and/or take a massive toll on one's health.
But there's a LOT we could be doing to make it easier to create more jobs in the U.S. and lower the overall cost of living.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And when this program fails to get them enough votes, because the men who approve of such are outnumbered by the mix of:
Assuming, that is, that such a person is even allowed in the race to begin with.
Have you considered that maybe there's a reason for that? That, first, it might not play as well with voters as you think; and second, even if it could, that maybe the Establishment have tools at their disposal to ensure that any person who would make these sort of statements is totally prevented from ever becoming a "real mainstream political figure"?
The Cathedral/Deep State/Swamp. The Ruling Elites who actually decide everything, regardless of what the voters in the sham that is "democracy" think.
And is he running for office? How much electoral sway does that "following" have?
And where did it get him?
Same questions as Tate.
First, no, there are other options. Just do like in Europe and engage in "defensive democracy" — make sure both party establishments know not to let such a person ever get on the ballot. Second, I think arresting them would work just fine. First, because it'd be easy to develop any number of pretexts for doing so that the media can "sell" to enough of the public. Second, because what would it not "working out for them" even look like?
It almost certainly won't be.
In rough order of escalation? Get the GOP to nominate someone else instead. Defeat his campaign with lawfare a la Ted Stevens. Find a legal excuse to remove him from the ballot. Rig the election. Assassination by "lone gunman." Imprison or execute him after he's convicted in Nuremberg-style trials alongside the rest of the "Fascist Trump regime" as part of the start of the campaign to "denazify" America.
Democracy is fake, electoral politics is all kayfabe, the will of the electorate means nothing, us peasant masses are entirely powerless.
More options
Context Copy link
He didn't just die. He was murdered. So there is your answer.
Vance is married with a daughter. If he does it he'll stop when his daughter is old enough to understand.
By a dude.
This is perhaps the one big thing that could break if too many guys check out of the system.
Outbreaks of targeted violence on political figures across the spectrum, and as mentioned above, insufficient police capacity to catch and stop all of them.
Don't think that guys aren't noticing how positively many women responded to Luigi Mangione offing a CEO.
That really seems to be the big test. There are a lot of wifeguys and girldads out there who might feel sympathetic to the plight of young males, but are inherently unable to utter words that they imagine might upset said wives or daughters and thus can never really be the leader such guys might seek.
Vance so far hasn't seemed to have had that issue, he's at least willing to openly hope for his own wife's conversion to Christianity.
What makes you think it would be "across the spectrum"?
First, you don't have to catch all of them to have a deterrent effect (just look at case closure rates for various crimes in the US). Second, that just becomes reason to prioritize the "more dangerous" would-be assassins — by which, of course, I mean those targeting left-wing politicians. (Right-wing politicians? Well, don't you know we have a police shortage? Shame we just can't do anything to protect them from these assassins, who are probably all fellow right-wingers, don'tchaknow.)
Because he's a leftist with a leftist motive for the murder; it wouldn't work the other way around.
Exactly. Between them and women, your "based pro-male" politician's supporters will be hopelessly outnumbered. Women are wonderful, men are expendable.
Such guys will have grievances against politicians of almost all stripes, and will probably start going after targets of opportunity if they don't have strong ideological motivations.
Deterrent effect relies on guys being afraid of prison and/or death.
What my position presupposes is: What if they aren't. What if they see no path forward that leads to them being, e.g. happily married in a solid career in a safe neighborhood and a bright future for their kids.
Some % of them will accept their lot. The rest, what can anyone threaten them with to 'de-radicalize' them.
Wanna bet.
Don't forget gay guys. I think that between the liberal females, the lefty dudes, the gays that simply don't have share their concerns, the sociopathic lotharios who just want to get laid, and the tradcons that cannot ever speak ill of women, it is a loose but generally united coalition that says male-oriented political concerns are generally beneath notice.
But the pool of males that is the subject of the problem is almost the exact same pool which performs almost all the important economic activity in this country.
"Such guys" will be very rare, basically for all the reasons Tyler Cowen gives in Average is Over for why nobody will overthrow the dystopian future he foresees, despite 80% of the population being utterly immiserated peasants crammed into favelas and subsisting on beans: aging population, ever-improving electronic distractions, ever-broader applications of psychiatric meds (and weed), ever-more omnipresent surveillance and increasingly-autonomous police drones. Then add obesity and lack of fitness on top of that. Most guys with grievances will mostly just numb themselves with video games and porn. I hear AI girlfriends are getting better every day.
And our society is still well-off enough that very few men will ever end up being that fearless — and I say that as someone with frequent suicidal ideation. Aside from being about to turn 44, I'm pretty much part of the very group you're talking about. And even then, I'm still quite afraid of prison (much more than death).
Nothing. Whether they see that "path forward" or not makes no difference, because they can't do anything about it. They're powerless. They'll keep on doing what they do, because they won't be given any choice in the matter.
I suppose > 99.999% is still "some %."
Punishment. Escalating punishment. If punishment isn't deterring them, then increase until it does. Impose increasingly torturous consequences.
I don't really have money to spare with which to bet, and even if I did, how would we set up terms? You win if, within some period of time, there's a right-wing assassin who proves as popular with the ladies as Luigi, and if not (either no such assassins, or insufficient popularity), I win? How would we define "right-wing assassin" to mirror Luigi — as opposed to, say, "random schizo"? And how would we measure popularity with the ladies?
Edit: That said, I stand by that position, and I'll add this Substack rant from Kulak. As he notes about the Left:
But, he noted, both in that article and over on Twitter, this is only on the left. Over on the right, anyone who resorts to Mangione-style violence is instantly denounced and disowned by everyone, their very memory spat upon by their entire side, even their own parents.
The adoration you see for Luigi is a purely left-wing phenomenon. It only happens on the left, can only happen on the left, and will only ever happen on the left. The right does not do it, and never will.[/edit]
And it's never going away.
So what? They're going to keep providing that economic activity, whether it provides them with a "path forward" to marriage and kids or not, because if enough of them stop providing as to make a difference, they will be forced to start again. And if the force is insufficient, then more will be applied. Where there's a whip, there is a way, and the beatings will continue until morale improves.
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
More options
Context Copy link