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 -
Why do a lot of women not like acknowledging the practical aspects of dating? By this I mean that women appear to be put off by me simply discussing:
Of course I'm not discussing these topic with women I'm trying to actually date, I'm not that autistic. But if you're trying to actually find a partner to settle down and have kids with, how do you not take all of these into account? Not only does it reek of impracticality, but on an even deeper level, it appears that any attempt to practically model the dating world at all produces a negative female reaction.
(Maybe it's because some of these women don't ever intend on having kids and therefore don't ever have to be realistic about dating.)
This touches on one of good ol' Spengler's most esoteric distinctions: the difference between truths ("Wahrheiten") and facts ("Tatsachen").
I think the answer to your question – the only real answer – is that knowing a bunch of truths about what makes human faces attractive, about genetic fitness, about fertility and about how an attractive man acts et cetera do not actually help you with the fact that you are unattractive. To quote Oppenheimer from the Nolan-movie: theory will only take you so far.
It's fun for us cerebral minds to figure out what makes the machine tick, and some of the best and most entertaining Youtube-videos I've seen are actually about lookstheory. But it has not helped me with women in the slightest; and since most people are practically rather than cerebrally inclined, they mostly believe that thinking a bunch about theory is the sign of the low-status weirdo.
Yes, ivory tower-type reasoning about female attraction isn't going to help your game very much. But "adjust your posture this way for a more dominant look" definitely helps, and likewise understanding that "women are attracted to dominance" is very useful as a guiding principle that points you in the right direction. And if anyone disagrees with points like these, then an interesting discussion can be had over why they think that way, and how else they would explain field-tested results.
But no, that doesn't answer my question at all.
This one is particularly useful because the dating advice in mainstream sources has been filtered to make feminists feel good about themselves and therefore men who get their dating advice from mainstream sources are told the opposite.
Just remember "women are attracted to dominance" is not the same thing as "women are attracted to bullying/pushiness". Confidence is not the same as arrogance.
This is a polite fiction like so many others. The line cuts right through that "Hello, Human Resources" meme. Dominance and pushiness may not be the exact same thing but there's a whole lot of overlap.
There were a whole lot of classes, back in the 90s-00s, about being Assertive Not Aggressive. Maybe men didn't get them, but for Women In Business it was part of "how to be a leader and a boss without coming across as a bitch".
More options
Context Copy link
People being willing to overlook it when attractive people do things they shouldn't is pretty human. Doesn't mean that all the behavior they overlook is attractive.
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