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 -
That's only a problem if you believe that men in general or on average deserve a fair chance at accomplishing things like romantic partnership, sex, children, family, general life satisfaction. But my observation is that women aren't concerned with that, and I doubt it's physically possible to make them concerned with that, in general. They're concerned with finding the highest quality partner for themselves, and the highest quality partner is heavily determined by the partner's genes, and so the point of the test is purely to discriminate, not to be a system that men can learn from in order to pass it. The entire point is that they should be able to pass it without any help, despite the, again, bizarre, contradictory, nonsensical nature of the test, which also has a horrendous feedback mechanism. If the tests fixed any of these things, then the tests would work less well.
What can I say?
I'm a man, I would like a 'fair shot' at every one of those things. I think the world that is ordered to enable the majority of men to achieve this outcome if they can follow a few relatively simple guidelines, and become 'worthy' of raising kids, will produce a LOT more human happiness and long term thriving on net than the trajectory we're on now.
If women themselves are less happy by any reasonable measure then clearly this whole experiment has failed to produce good results!
The world was never fair. But it is likely that it has become substantially less fair in this regard than most men were ever taught to expect.
So as a very basic level of fairness, if the actual 'rules' are thus:
THEN WE SHOULD BE HONEST AND ACTUALLY TEACH THIS AS TRUTH.
I will grant it as true for purposes of discussion.
If the entire social system does not teach men that this is how things work, and inculcates them with rules like "be yourself," "treat her with respect," "believe women," and "you have male privilege"... and these men find that adhering to these rules is not effective for achieving their goals...
This is what creates the opportunity for Red Pill Influencers to step in. The whole reason it is called "red pill" is the metaphor for 'waking up from the program' and breaking the conditioning of how men are socially expected to act... and accept the biological reality of what actually produces romantic, sexual, and genetic success!
The only reason they can claim to be providing special/secret knowledge is that society and culture have in fact been hiding this information. Hence why I said:
So in short, even if the world can't be made more fair in outcomes, we could at least teach men the reality of how the game is played.
And what we appear to be observing with Clavicular Et al. a huge generational cohort of men who have been exposed to and accept that reality, and they are trying to optimize as best they can, and (unsurprisingly) the social institutions that want to maintain the status quo revile this. But they can't refute them.
I see a bunch of essentially "we should" statements, which I interpret as "the world would be better if this were so:" and for your statements, I do agree. I also think the world would be better if we all got unicorns and rainbows and eternal life without illness beyond what's exactly needed to provide just the right amount of suffering and challenge for a good life. If only we could just "we should" into that world!
Now, perhaps such a world you describe, unlike one with unicorns (until we figure out genetic engineering to a sufficient extent), is possible to get to from here. I don't think it's obviously impossible. Figuring out if and how to change this world to that better world are the real challenges, not just "what would a better world look like." And you cannot expect women as a group or on average, to do anything other than be maximally sabotaging to such a project. Because giving men information and feedback on how to be attractive is something that directly harms women's ability to judge them as potential mates. So any project of getting to that better future from here must take into account their sabotage and route around it or through it. Their sabotage is as much a fact of life as death and taxes, so best to just accept it as it is instead of considering it bad or good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Women have sons and brothers though. Shouldn’t they be invested into increasing the fitness of their male children?
Sometimes, at the direct one-to-one cost to the male children of other women who aren't related to them, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but who's going to hold them accountable if they don't do it?
(The current answer is "nobody, and if men themselves try it, they'll just get oppressed and blood-libelled even harder for it", and it shows.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link