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 guess I see his point, that it's easy to generate romantic feeling early on that doesn't cash out in commitment, and that you often don't know what kind of a partner you'll be in a relationship until you're in one. I see he's trying to burst the bubble of "$lonely_redditor who's never had a date is treated unjustly because Henry the wifebeater has a string of inexplicably loyal girlfriends." That strikes me as wisdom borne of experience.
But I also don't think a compassionate stance towards lonely men requires that we assume every one of them is deeply a good guy, or will always be a great partner to women. My view is that it's a sad fact of the world if $lonely_redditor is lonely and inexperienced despite having the capacity to generate feelings of love and intimacy. It's certainly possible that $lonely_redditor gets some experience and turns out to be a jerk. It's also possible that he turns out to be a great guy. The issue is we don't know, and perhaps more vitally he doesn't get the chance to learn from minor failures how to be a great guy. I think anyone among us has to admit to ourselves that we made boneheaded moves in our early relationships, and improved as we got older and gained more experience.
But the principal issue with lonely men is their subjective experience of unfulfilled capacity for intimacy, and the main complaint (going back to Scott's famous posts) is that this experience is often treated with scorn, dismissal, or disbelief. I don't think many people, even struggling men themselves, want to actually face what it means for people to suffer loneliness. So we get just world theories, "well maybe they'd just be bad boyfriends anyway," accusations of various forms of creepery, and on the other side of the fence, "women are just vain hoes, the system is fundamentally evil, it's all women's fault," etc. Romantically ineffective men are almost by the iron law of nature low-status, and problems that are low-status are shoved under the rug because they're inconvenient, or denied and converted into injustices because they're ego-destroying.
That said, I think the reality that the only law of male dating is "be attractive; don't be unattractive" drives a lot of the "I'm just going to be a bastard to women, fuck you," attitudes you see among young men these days. At the extremes this is the kind of Andrew Tate stuff, somewhat less extreme the kind of Sloot stuff, a little closer to the mainstream the redpill stuff. If morality plays only a limited role in one's romantic success, and isn't a "defense against unattractiveness" (to put it one way), that's going to naturally drive them towards a feeling that acting morally is just leaving value on the table in a highly competitive environment.
I agree, but that's a different issue. As long as you agree that some appreciable percentage of lonely guys are in fact serious and commitment-oriented, then my point is supported.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link