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 -
Just to make a general observation about the gender war as a followup to my comment on the Promise Keepers organization:
I think we can generally observe is that women’s main complaint about men is that desirable hetero men are unwilling to exclusively commit. If we accept this, we can also see that this is actually two complaints rolled into one. 1. The men that are willing to commit are undesirable (icky, clingy, lame, “chopped”, entitled, toxic, porn-addled, skinny fat etc.). 2. The men that are desirable are unwilling to commit. (On a tangent I’d argue that most of the lipstick feminist complaints made in the mainstream media by middle-class women about men in general do usually boil down to the rather similar complaint that 34-37-year-old successful, well-paid, charismatic, tall, ambitious etc. urban men are in no rush to marry 31-34-year-old college-educated middle-class office worker women.)
If we look at this logically, to the extent that it even makes sense to try doing so (which is a valid question in itself), there are two potential remedies for this problem. 1. Focus on the undesirable men that are willing to commit and somehow transform them into desirable men i.e. alphaize the betas 2. Focus on the desirable men and incentivize them to commit i.e. betaize the alphas.
Now I don’t know about you but to me it seems self-evident that #2 has more potential for success no matter how you look at it and yet virtually everyone who makes any sort of recommendations regarding this entire issue (and that does not only include Red Pillers) is promoting #1. No, really – I’ve never seen anyone advocate for #2, not even the Promise Keepers or, for that matter, any other similar group that does not claim to be feminist and is at the same time pushing the nebulous concept of a new positive masculinity.
Am I seeing things that are not there or is this really not the case? Because as far as I can tell, it is. It seems like there is a general unspoken consensus in society that trying to compel sexually successful men to commit to women is a completely impossible, pie-in-the-sky idea that deserves no attention at all; that, in other words, expecting modern women to elicit commitment from the men they are attracted to is laughable lunacy.
As a society we’ve basically nuked option 1. The most basic accomplishment a man has to do in life is have a job. The most depressing stat I’ve seen in Americana and I believe under discussed is the prime-age male employment rate is now 83%. It was 97% in 1960.
Alpha and Beta is a stupid concept in the modern data world. A huge portion of the data market isn’t even getting to beta. And of course we had the recent article in the exclusion of white men from status industries. Alpha and beta was interesting in 2000 with Mystery. And it does show up on dating apps. Getting a job is the first step to getting your dick wet. We can hate on the apps but the dating market would still be completely fubar with a close to 20% male unemployment rate.
On pure attraction the data I’ve seen lately only 10% of men max are physically attractive to females. The other 90% of men women can learn to find them attractive. Its accomplishments. If the job market is nuked and the ability of white men to gain traditional status is blocked then men will not develop the resumes and confidence to make women wet. Nelson Rockefeller had a 25 year old in love with him when he died. I don’t think that was because of his good looks.
I believe the 3rd category would be "omegas", they don't belong anywhere. But good looking chads can be deadbeats and still get laid. Job and money are only offset by good genetics.
Yes the PUA have always had that category. I guess my point is a lot of betas and alphas have become omegas because of the job market.
I am not sure what a DiCaprio or Clooney would be if they were waiting tables in LA unable to find work. Unable to find work as white-men. Then they give up and go home and play video games all-day.
I think even high status men can become omegas when they lack opportunities for achievement and purpose. The Tylor Chase childhood star to unhoused story feels realistic to me now.
They'd clean up. Again, the rules that apply to you and me don't really apply to DiCaprio. I know the whole "she's over 25" memes, but remember his character in Titanic was a poor artist. Asian and South Asian men have the least luck in dating, but very successful careers. Their culture rewards grindmaxxing, and neglects social and dating skills. Tylor Chase is a Hollywood tragedy. I don't know what I'd do at that stage. I come from wealth, graduated with zero debt, got enough money in my savings and a steady of stream of rental revenue to retire today and still afford expensive holidays twice a year. I have a great job that'll probably hit 6 figures before I turn 30. My last relationship was during college. Running on 4 years with zero play.
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