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 -
Everything discussed tends to boil down to one or the other, and becoming horrified over noticing that doesn't change it.
In particular, when you say we're a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation a realistic possibility, you're glossing over the fact that that abundance is still being provided by people. And to provide for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves requires taking from those who can. So male incels have to work to pay the taxes for e.g. the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. That you find that normal and just and proper, they clearly find horrifying themselves.
Allow me to express my skepticism that these miserable "incels" whining that they are incapable of attracting a woman without compulsion are in fact the productive members of society suffering for the benefit of others.
You also, as per usual, make unfounded assumptions about what I find normal and proper and would actually agree to, given a choice.
Be that as it may, let's say we agree to cut every form of charity and allow non producers to starve. That still doesn't put every female under your boot, especially not the desirable ones. They'll still mostly have jobs. So you need to go well beyond cutting off benefits for non producers.
The black pillers and Dread Jim fanboys do not have some clear eyed view of sexual relations and how civilization is supposed to work. Dread Jim doesn't even get Islamic society right when he's ranting about it, and they are about the closest to implementing his ideals in the modern world.
Yes, I am in fact horrified to notice some people are unironically endorsing rape and enslavement. Libertarian cavils about welfare notwithstanding.
Actually, horrified is too strong a word. It suggests I still have the capacity to be morally offended and shocked. I've known for quite a while there are people this base. I'm just disappointed at all the masks coming off as we gyre.
Ah, Just Worlding rears its ugly head. Apparently no one could actually be economically productive and still suffer from lackanooky.
But not horrified to notice that you are endorsing enslavement, because you refuse to notice.
You're getting increasingly lazy in your argumentation. It's not "Just worlding" to notice the correlation between NEET gooners and incels. Is every single incel a non producer? No, but the flattering cope that by and large they are producers unfairly providing for whores who won't give them nooky doesn't correlate to any honest observation.
As for enslavement, what I notice is that you have reduced the argument to "Failure to enslave and rape women means enslavement of men." I'm not sure that is the position you intended to back into. I'm also not sure it's not. But it's certainly a Kulak-based take. Fascinating.
Let's say you're right and I'm failing to be horrified by enslavement of men because I don't notice it. (I reject your flawed logic, but let's suppose it holds, for the sake of argumen.) Are you claiming that believing women should be enslaved and raped is more moral because you admit noticing that's what you're endorsing?
If not every single incel is a non producer, then this argument applies to at least one incel, and dismissing it with "skepticism" is indeed just-worlding.
Certainly I have not reduced it to that. You can just not enslave the men. In fact, even if you enslave some women you haven't stopped enslaving the men.
Have you seen the meme that goes:
Man: "The average women is 5'4." Woman: "But I'm 5'8" though."
You're doing the meme.
Great, we both agree you shouldn't enslave people. Why did it take you so long to get there?
I don't think you have the data to say that the average incel is a NEET gooner. But even if you did, the average doesn't matter; those incels who are not NEET gooners would still have a valid objection.
Why can't you get there? Or do you think only women are people? The incels have a problem, and some have an awful solution for it. You just want them to suck it up (and actually they don't have a problem anyway because they're just NEET gooners)
I want incels who can't get laid to suck it up (or improve their situation), yes.
Their "awful solution" is that women should be forced to have sex with them or starve. You are arguing that if I reject that awful solution, I am endorsing male slavery. How did you get there?
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
Jobs doing what, exactly?
Taking this scenario at face value, there are exactly zero NGO jobs. There are dramatically fewer government jobs, at all levels. If you allow for private, voluntary, charity in your scenario, that would save some of the NGO sector but it would certainly be drastically reduced.
I’ll call private sector marketing and PR type jobs a wash, because the drop in consumption from the absence of government charity might be counterbalanced by the increase in people’s take home pay.
I would argue that government charity is the only thing that makes HR jobs viable, but because it exists as a result of legislation that is not technically charity in a monetary sense, the HR ladies are saved.
Big, big cuts in the education world, because all the government education grants are gone. Most of these job losses will have to fall on the admin side of education, because as bad as teachers can be, they are still actually the ones providing the service.
Healthcare takes a hit, as fewer people go to the doctor in the absence of massive federal subsidies. Again, this mostly hits the admin, so doctor and nurse jobs are probably mostly safe.
There are no more corporate or farm subsidies, so everybody in those sectors has to get real lean and mean and actually identify their chaff, in the style of Musk taking over Twitter. Again, this is mostly going to fall on admin type jobs, not the wrench turning ones. And while I’ve met many tough as nails cowgirls out here in the Intermountain West, I’ve met four times as many tough as nails cowboys.
There’s a reason HR is something like 80% women and plumbing is 96% dudes, despite master plumbers making more money than HR managers, on average. Plumbing is actually hard work and women, even accounting for tough as nails cowgirls, mostly don’t want to do that.
Basically, in this scenario, are you predicting some sort of exodus of women from laptop jobs to Rosie the Riveter work? Because the only reason that worked the first time is that there was a dramatically reduced number of men available to do that work. You might notice that women have not staged a massive takeover of the factory floors in the intervening years, despite being given every opportunity. Even in software and data and AI, classic sit at a desk jobs, they are huge minorities!
In the absence of the current situation of massive (forced) government charity, there would be far, far fewer jobs that women would view as acceptable and high status enough to be worth doing. I think they would find other, similar things to occupy their time. For example, remote entrepreneurship, possibly. Women have been doing “Work from Home” since Eve.
Anyway, I am confident that this scenario, as you have presented it, would be both a better world to live in and also not a world where women are constantly being beaten and raped while barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
I, for one, think the evidence is that they would in fact be happier.
That's not the scenario the "Make women property again" fanboys are advocating.
I think there are problems with your economic assumption that basically our entire infrastructure is running on top of welfare and without it there will be almost zero female employment (this was, in fact, not the case in previous centuries), but you seem to ignore the quiet part being said out loud. They don't want women being happy and married. Reread some of those posts again. They literally consider all women to be hypergamous whores whose toxic sexual impulses can only be constrained with force or threat of starvation. This isn't 'convince women they'd be happier in more traditional roles." It's not even "Kinder, kuche, kirche." It's unironic hatred.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link