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 -
Then get married and become a normie.
Like it or not, society doesn't revolve around men having fun. You're not a kid anymore. I'm not sure why eccentrics should have a veto over societal development. The suburbs are great for most people; your disinterest in growing up into a normie probably says more about you than it does about society.
OP’s argument appears to be that American suburbia is specifically structured around the sole consideration of enabling young children to play in yards and on lawns, and that this is done at the expense of everything else (walkability, services etc.). I’d add that this consideration doesn’t even hold up, because children nowadays scarcely use their free time to play in yards instead of staring at screens, and the period in their lives when they are even interested in playing in yards at all is rather short.
More options
Context Copy link
Brutal.
This is a stage of adulthood that a lot of men have trouble with. Maybe an identity crisis over. Life isn't fun all of the time, and it gets more unfun with time. People grow old and die. First your parents and then your older siblings and cousins and then you. You may as well learn sooner, rather than later, that life is still meaningful and worth living even if it's not maximally fun.
Indeed.
More options
Context Copy link
Who are you worried about veto-ing what exactly? There's approximately 0 veto-ing that prevents new suburban development, except for the NINBYism of neighboring suburban developments lol.
Incorrect. Central planning at the state and regional level does so, through urban growth boundaries and similar growth restrictions. This isn't NIMBYs (who mostly don't want you to build halfway houses for criminals and/or the mentally ill, or dense pod housing, next to them), it's New Urbanists and similar anti-sprawl types restricting single family development.
While you're not wrong about urban boundaries, this:
Is absolutely ridiculous lmao, just blatantly not true
I can find roughly infinite examples of quite literally every built form being opposed, my buddies neighborhood Facebook group is current having a meltdown because someone wants to build an extension on the back of their SFH
More options
Context Copy link
The New Urbanists are having about as much success restricting single family development as Hamas is at destroying Israel.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST1F
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's the sanewashed position. The reality is that NIMBYs are against duplexes and fourplexes too.
And single-family homes on small lots.
The metro areas with urban growth boundaries are the same ones that resist densification downtown because that is what blue state voters (especially blue state Republicans) vote for. Houston and Austin are sprawling at the edges and densifying in the middle simultaneously because that is what Texans (including Austin liberals) vote for.
This effect is less obvious in the UK because everywhere has local politics dominated by Boomer NIMBYs and the only solution appears to be for the working-age population to wait it out six-to-a-bedroom in our overpriced hovels chanting "They can't live forever".
Ok, minor correction- while Austin liberals are decently pro-growth, the suburban sprawl in Texas is approved by... republicans. Including in metros where the core city votes very reliably blue. The suburbs outside the city which due the sprawling are invariably republican run and republican voting, although these republicans are often moderate. In general Texas republicans want to build out and Texas democrats want to build up, and except for Fort Worth(which is run by republicans) all the major cities are run by democrats so they build apartments, and all the suburbs are run by republicans so they build vast tracts of single family homes.
The 'smaller' cities(and this means not big 6- Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso. Some of them are major cities population wise) in Texas are ruby red and mostly build out, but often build lower quality(more duplexes and stuff). If you're wondering why Texas is still red, it's mostly due to the overwhelming republican advantage in the smaller cities and their ability to keep pace in growth terms due to endless cheap suburbia.
I don't think there is any disagreement here. In Texas you have Texas Democrats who want to build up in their cities (and Texas Republicans don't try to stop them) and Texas Republicans who want to build out in their cities (and Texas Democrats don't try to stop them). But in the deep blue states (definitely including CA, OR and NY - I am not an expert on the US-wide situation) - and the rest of the Anglosphere with the appropriate recolouration - you have blue state Democrats who mostly don't want to build up in their cities (and blue state Republicans try to stop them when they do, and sometimes succeed) and blue state Republicans who are kind of meh about building out in their cities (and blue state Democrats try to stop them when they do, and often succeed).
This is unusual because it is a difference between blue state and red state political culture, not a difference between blue tribe and red tribe beliefs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How much actual banning of single family homes is going on? The only thing I've seen is banning "single family zoning" which doesn't ban single family houses but bans the banning of denser options.
Oregon, Washington, and Tennessee have state-mandated urban growth boundaries for all cities. California has growth boundaries in many areas. Even Florida does. Maryland has a state growth plan that prevents building in Western Maryland. Then there's things like affordable housing requirements, which mean you can't build market price SFH in any given town unless you build the requisite number of subsidized pods.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but,
He's gay. Or using gay lingo. I don't forsee a wife and kids in his future.
Well then he should fix that.
How would you suggest he do that?
A 1972 case study suggests that it is possible to use a combination of wireheading and conditioning to treat homosexuality (h/t: The Occidental Observer), but that's probably not feasible for an individual.
I'll caveat that :
It's a pity that a) no credible research org is willing to try anything along these lines today, and b) the places that would want to try it are so sketchy, because it seems like tRMS should be a good deal more ethical and ... well, if not reversible, at least not as heavy on long-term infections and seizures. But I've got a kink for orientation play, followed a lot of bihackers in the tumblr ratsphere (and unintentional bihackers in the furry fandom), and I know more people who've ended up in relationships they can jerk off over but not consistently consummate than who've gotten it to work out well. Maybe they're just missing something -- I'm convinced that a lot of the 'physical' problems are downstream of scent and texture, which neither the Tulane study nor modern efforts generally train around -- but it might well be something deeper that only a small fraction of the populace can train.
On the gripping hand, if you just want a wife and kids, a gay guy doesn't really have to go that far. Beards are not new technology; post-nut clarity isn't gonna make a vial of your swimmers stop working; fujoshi are not unobtanium. Which points to the broader issue. Despite the perceptions, gay guys are looking for more than a hole (or pole) to pump and ignore until the next time they get horny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not a defect, unless you consider him to be a means to an end rather than an end in himself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nope. Utterly, totally fucking wrong. A big part of why I like cities, as a straight man, is that the dating scene is better. Good luck with your OLD apps in the exurbs though.
Okay. "Breeders" is a gay term for straight people. You can borrow gay language. People reading it will think you are gay.
Not clear what old apps are. Dating apps? I have never used a dating app. This is actually confusing since the same apps are inside and outside city limits. Some other meaning of "apps" I'm not getting?
Pretty sure OLD = Online Dating
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ironically, i need to first move to a city to find a wife. Only then can i move to a suburb to spawn and become a normie. That's the American cycle of life.
I don't agree with the "just find a wife bro" that you're responding to, but this isn't true either. You can in fact find a nice girl (or boy) whether you live in the city center, in the suburbs, or in BFE nowhere. People do it all the time.
How do you find a potential wife who is presumably outside your social circle in a US suburb?
That is very much outside the scope of my expertise. I met my wife through online dating, so there's that. But otherwise I don't know how people are meeting, I just know that they do as a result of seeing people's stories over time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
(If you don't mind her weighing 250lbs)
Women in cities do tend to have better physiques than elsewhere (same with the men, of course). There's also a level of achievement in cities: you have to put up with the In This House We Believe crowd a lot more, but, absolutely and proportionately, you find more people who are deeply ambitious, agentic, and capable of making an important mark on the world. The culture of the suburbs is more just finding the joy in the day-to-day, which has its own value, but some people want something different.
Yeah, I'm biased, as someone deeply attracted to a will to power in women, but that's the next level up of concern. I can't imagine settling for a femoid whose dream in life is to trade in wall-to-wall beige carpets for grey walls and lighter-grey floorboards.
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
You say this as if it is a choice.
I'd also ask to consider what's the point of being a normie in a decadent, degenerate society.
I think raising kids gives people immense satisfaction; and you can live in a decadent degenerate society and NOT be decadent or degenerate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People would probably respond better to this sort of pro-suburban stuff if it was ever written as a paean to the sublime joys of seeing your children and caring for them and making that sacrifice, instead of longhouse hectoring because "you just have to, ok?! And if you don't, I'll tell the HOA!" Urbanists and suburbanists appear to be in some kind of competition to see who can me more off-putting to onlookers.
Those joys are unfortunately not very describable.
I have plenty of friends who do a pretty good job of it. Just got to overcome the instinctive negativity bias the internet gives people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link