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 -
I was catching up on the quality contribution threads for last month (yes, I'm very late...) and I ran across this post from @Amadan.
I found this part specifically was interesting in the broader context of the discussion:
One of these things is not like the other.
For men:
For women:
Is it just me or is this scale a bit tilted?
(Apologies for responding so late and in a top-level comment; I didn't want this getting buried in a weeks old thread.)
You're missing the underlying point because I was being sardonic. Most women do not, in fact, refuse to settle for anything less than a 6/6/6. Even nice and pretty women!
I do not believe the incel exists who couldn't find a woman, and probably a pleasant enough woman, to be a partner. What they generally can't find is a woman who meets their various standards of attractiveness, personality, virginal shy-yet-freakiness, and willingness to be a bangmaid.
Somehow having standards that may be out of your league is evil and unjust on the part of women, but reasonable and tragic on the part of men.
Something approaching half of them are projected to be single by 2030
If that's not a result of 'refusing to settle' en masse then what could it be.
And my basic reminder, I am more than happy to look at data you present that contradicts my point, or accept any argumentation pointing out where my analysis is flawed.
Anyway, here's testimony from a matchmaker (also a female) about the standards put forth by a 31-year-old single woman. "There are a decent number of profiles like this."
It could be a lack of trying on the male end. People spend more time online, which takes away from stuff done in the real world. They still have to work though, so the time is taken from recreational activities. If I am on social media 4 hours per day, work for 8 + transportation, sleep at least 6, 2 hours for chores, food, exercise, and other daily necessities, and use the weekend on family or friends, I might not really want to spend what little time I have left on dating. It is kind of tiring compared to chilling on the couch, and I can always just watch porn to take the edge off.
Add to this that for many, their social life has moved online as well, for example in the form of MMO guilds and discord communities, and there are even less reasons to leave the house. Going out just to date and nothing else feels super awkward. People want to meet others through their daily activities. But if no daily activities take place outside, then what are you supposed to do? Taking dating online as well is an option, but that has its own issues.
You could meet someone through work, but many might consider the risk of drama to not be worth it. Especially if they have little romantic experience due to what I described above.
40% of young men have never approached a woman for a date, right?
I am simply trying to create an alternative narrative for what might be going on. Likely it is a combination of several things.
Let us say female standards have increased to the point where "just" 5-10% of young men are actually just shit out of luck basically no matter what they do. Then add worsening social skills due to spending less time in person, which makes it so interactions between the sexes are more awkward, further reducing the chances of them leading to anything. A portion of men probably got rejected a handful of times in a row, and generalized that to mean they were undateable. Dating being replaced by hookup culture probably also explains some of it. Young people might report being single and childless but still have casual sex on the side, which would not always be obvious from the statistics. And then the people who are only looking for something more serious could easily give up because finding someone who wants to commit is so hard. Finally add what I wrote above about just not wanting do date, and I think we start to have a plausible-sounding explanation.
I just do not believe that all of it should be blamed on women wanting an unrealistic fantasy.
Can we blame the social forces/media that women are susceptible to for inculcating those unrealistic fantasies?
Maybe regulate those factors a bit?
China Did.
Sure, but good luck with that. The US are so against social media regulation that they threatened the EU, a collection of sovereign foreign nations, for doing exactly that.
Well, there are caveats.
Likewise, sports gambling and gambling ads were banned for a long time. Tobacco ads were banned in living memory b/c of health implications.
Me, I think it would be simple enough to just mandate that every social media site that hits above a certain userbase size must open-source their algorithm.
To a degree this is similar to mandating 'Nutrition Facts' on food. People are consuming content from a source that is completely opaque about how that content is selected and curated.
Hard to see a 1A concern 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