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 -
An elegant solution to all the male crisises, embryonic sex selection. https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/the-y-chromosome-is-dysgenic
Men commit far more crime than women, they are more prone to diseases and they live shorter lives.
There may be more variation in men's IQ scores and they are more common in STEM, so we would certainly need some men for new discoveries and the like but what is the need for 1:1 sex ratio?
Most people don't work on intellectual tasks in civilization which need constant innovation and incredible time spent on them with a singular focus. Most jobs are mundane and of maintaince variety. We can just have few men which work on hard research type jobs where vast majority of population is women. Maybe with lack of men female researchers would lead. Besides if super intelligence arrives we may not need men working at these jobs at all.
This would solve the incel problem since men are rarer, this would solve the problem of dangerous men preying on women.
Note I am not serious here, but talking about this hypothetical seems like fun. It does seem obviously wrong but I can't pinpoint any specific moral principle it might violate.
Surely there is something wrong with this argument but what is it? It seems fine from an purely utalitarian perspective.
Edit: i am again restating that I am not seriously considering this. It's starting prompt for philosophy and a fun writing excercise.
A fun shower thought I had:
In competitive videogames, "smurfing" is a pejorative for a more-skilled player fooling skill-based matchmaking systems to play (and win) against a less-skilled player. This is seen as a kind of stolen valor: you only look impressive because of unfair comparisons!
I think its interesting that we do not respond emotionally similarly to hypergamous norms: Chad is basically smurfing the ranked queue, no?
I think when encountering Chad "smurfing" in person, i.e. someone from a high-status environment coming to a lower-status one to fish for girls (or even just coming there without the overt intent to steal mates), men did react with hostility historically. The city boy among the country boys; the student from an elite school among the kids from a merely "decent" one, etc.
That's interesting. Do you have any examples? Also, if those men react with hostility, isn't that just simple male competitiveness? What I was talking about was more "society and social norms as a whole" e.g. including other high-status men who think that behavior is unfair.
Furthermore: historically, the purpose of monogamy was to marginalize hypergamous norms. In strong monogamous societies, "smurfing" is not possible, because the society is trying hard to equalize mens' status.
Rather, I mean: it should seem that society that acknowledges and strengthens hypergamous norms (e.g. by legalizing harems, codifying a virgin male underclass, etc.) is self-defeating: wouldn't they realize Chad is just smurfing? That it's all just positional?
So it would seem something primal about status is immune to this fairness instinct. Alternatively, hypergamous societies like this tend to never happen because people actually do feel it is unfair. I do not know.
E: Skill-based matchmaking is interesting because its an admission that high-skilled players are not entitled to high win rates in gameplay. I suppose that is fundamental difference.
Aren't there very few women promiscuous which have sex with chads? Most women have relatively few dating partners. The promiscuous women are selecting for superficial features since they are in for sex and pleasure. Normal women are just not having that much sex and are not available on dating apps since they are taken.
So it gives an appearance that all women are very shallow since only the very shallow women are available for dating.
How would an incel uprising work in this context? Normal men and women are pairing up. Promiscuous women are choosing to have sex for pleasure instead of dating the bottom 20% since they don't have any societal pressure to do so.
If we lived in a gender reversed world lots of incels would indeed be having sex with female equivalent of chads who are readily available instead of getting in permanent relationship with ugly women.
In this gender reversed world, there would be few hot women who are satisfying lot of medicore men and there would be lot of fat women which are never picked.
This is not even a new thing by the way, even in 1800s there were still an lowerclass of men who never reproduced.
In places like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the early United States, the rate of adults who lived to old age without having children was shockingly high—between 15% and 20%
Even then women were not dating poor men and preferred living alone than that.
The behaviour simply makes sense from game theory and evolutionary perspective.
I might be using "hypergamous norms" differently than usual. I don't mean in the sense that women are actually being promiscuous, only that they try to date out of their league. Also I didn't mention incel rebellions anywhere in this reply chain. Did you respond to the wrong comment?
The uprising thing was in another comment by you
I assumed that by hypergamy you meant something close to the meme where there are ten women who are trying to date one man while rest of nine men are ignored.
Some women preferring to date men richer and more successful than them is a much weaker assertion.
That comment is about accelerationism, i.e. pushing for a different future. The idea is that pro-feminist solutions to fertility collapse are necessarily oppressive to men. Done correctly with the right technology though, the rebellion can be probably be prevented.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, even if the top players think smurfing is lame (they are motivated by their competitiveness and do not desire weak opponents), there are still smurfs who are skilled enough to stomp on weak players and driven enough by the desire to simply win, no matter against whom, to do so.
I don't think the metaphor applies to men striving to get women anyway, because most men don't appear to be competitive with other men on this. They want a partner above some baseline level of beauty, and would take several if they can get away with it, but competing with other men is not a motivation. "Trophy wives" only appear to be a male status symbol among the very top elites, who appear to be pathologically driven to competition in as may small ways as possible.
Yes, I think that is another way to see it. "high-skill players are not entitled to high win rates" is a competitive attitude. Since mating is not competitive in this sense, Chad is in fact entitled to a harem.
In gaming it's more like "high-skill players are not entitled to infinite noobs to stomp". Noobs don't like getting stomped, and it doesn't seem to be good for long-term playerbase vitality. High-skill players can always have as high a winrate as they want against bots.
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