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 -
Without @HereAndGone's snarkiness: why do so many of you salivate at the thought of women being forced to sexually service someone they don't want in order to eat? Yes, this was the norm in earlier ages. Those ages sucked a lot for almost everyone, given that the average person lived a precarious existence at best.
To desire a return to the sort of civilization in which you can get a woman because her survival literally depends on you does not seem to me like a normal, healthy thing to desire in a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation or enslavement a realistic possibility.
Even if this worked, would you not always be living with that gnawing awareness that she's only with you out of necessity? That you're literally just the next best thing to starvation?
It seems to me to not only be a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but one utterly lacking in self respect.
It's a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but the alternative you imply isn't good either -- that women get to eat through the efforts of men that they provide absolutely nothing for. His attitude is pro-rape; that alternative is slavery.
Are those truly the only two alternatives you can conceive of? You are literally incapable of envisioning, or observing, relationships between men and women that are not slavery?
That is indeed horrifying.
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?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link