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 -
Everyone's favorite looksmaxxer Clavicular was in the news last week due to his appearance in a Miami courtroom for some minor crime or other. What made this event go viral was the general agreement that he was brutally mogged by the surprisingly physically attractive judge.
Now, the odds that Clav just happened to get the best looking judge in the United States on his case are vanishingly small, which means that judge was specifically assigned to him. This follows a pattern I haven't seen anyone really discuss: All the institutions Clavicular has interacted with have sent their most physically attractive representative to deal with him. But doesn't that just validate his worldview? It's like the arguments against his position don't have enough merit to stand on their own. They have to be delivered by an absolute gigachad.
Think of the ABC interview. Like, no shit that guy says he's happy with how he looks. Does he think ABC would have let him anywhere near their precious cameras if he didn't look the way he does? Is it some coincidence that he and his fellow TV presenters tend to be seriously good-looking? Do ugly people just have poor interviewing skills?
What I want to see is the message of character uber alles delivered to Clav by a guy whose appearance makes women want to cross the street. I think he's hit upon something fundamental, but he's putting people off because he's going about it in the most autistic way possible.
It’s interesting how this youngblood gets constantly pearl-clutched over.
He basically got Streisand-effected to fame from advising other young men to indulge in a fraction of the vanity, self-absorption, and self-prioritization that women regularly exhibit.
You dare use women’s own spells against them, Peters?
If young men partake in looksmaxxing, it’s because they’re misogynistic incels who falsely believe propaganda espousing that women are shallow. If young women’s primary hobbies revolve around makeup and clothing, it’s because they’re victims of a misogynistic society that Socializes them into thinking they’re only valued for their appearance.
But most people who criticize Clav don't criticize him for trying to become better looking, they criticize him for encouraging men to do dangerous things like using a cocktail of powerful drugs to improve their looks and lower their social anxiety and to hit themselves in the face with a hammer (which is not actually particularly dangerous I think, since the hammer in question is more like a rubber mallet, but the critics don't know that because they don't bother to actually read a lot about looksmaxxing).
The majority of women's looksmaxxing attempts do not extend to the kind of dangerous practices that Clav encourages men to do. Even most cosmetic surgery, when done by actual doctors, might be less dangerous than Clav's drug habits, although of course all surgery carries some risk of severe injury.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
J.J. McCullough put out a video a few weeks ago where he talks about a "Freak of the Year" phenomenon he's observed this decade. Since at least 2022, there has been someone who becomes famous out of nowhere for reasons that range from irrelevant to reprehensible, before dropping off the face of the earth. During their brief period of celebrity, the public will gawk at them while various smart people try to argue that they're representative of some larger trend. If you're on the left, Clavicular is representative of toxic masculinity. If you're on the right, he's representative of the insane lengths men feel the need to go to to be attractive to women in our emasculated age. Since nobody actually likes the freaks, you can feel free to use them as punching bags because nobody will come to their defense when push comes to shove, except maybe their online followers, whom the smart people all believe are morons. Clavicular is Freak of the Year 2026; previous freaks have included Nick Fuentes, Hawk Tua Girl, and Andrew Tate. If I were king of this forum, my policy would be to ignore the freaks, because anything that can be said about them is ultimately irrelevant and only feeds into the dumb media narratives that sustain the freaks' existence. Ignore them.
The existence of lolcows is not sustained by media narratives. Rather, they exist in their niches of the Internet regardless of media attention.
Perhaps, but most of them aren't interviewed by respectable journalists or profiled on NPR. That's a media phenomenon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fundamentally, men are not allowed to actively and consciously attempt to improve themselves for sexual gain. It’s like women getting plastic surgery, except it’s even worse and more frowned upon. This explains the intensity of the negative reactions to not only Clavicular but to the “manosphere” and “TRP” communities in general.
There was an old 4chan post about how if you need to consciously devise and work towards a strategy to “get women”, you’re already fucked. Normal men don’t have to do that. They just go about their lives and socialize with people naturally and meet women who are attracted to them. I think that’s basically true. If you’re looksmaxxing or doing pickup artistry or anything of the sort, it’s because you’re markedly below average (in terms of sexual value) in some fundamental way. Women understand this (at least subconsciously) and thus are repulsed by looksmaxxing/PUA/etc. There’s a chance that the techniques might actually work and trick them into sleeping with a man who has inferior genes, which would be bad. Women don’t want to sleep with a man who had to work for it; they want the natural winner who just did everything correctly from the start. Women will scream and howl that this isn’t true, but, it is true.
People don’t hate Clavicular because he’s “superficial” or any dumb rationalization like that. They hate him because he’s trying to start an organized movement to upend the natural sexual order. Culturally speaking, we’ve long since been inculcated with the idea that economic upstarts are to be lauded; sexual upstarts, not so much.
You're supposed to let women believe this, even if it's not true, and even if it is obviously not true. And it's usually not true.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe i just exist in a right-wing media bubble but this seems just immediately and obviously false to me. Telling guys to lose whieght, work out, learn a new skill, or pick up a hobby is the overwhelmingly the norm, not the exception. If you think self-improvement is toxic/forbidden you might be succumbing to the woke mind-virus
It's not about self improvement. You're thinking about the man only.
The woman's concept of pair bonding is choice. Choice is hers. Anything that interferes with her agency over her choice in men is to be avoided. So a man visibly making himself into something she would choose, despite this being pretty much normal for most guys who believe they can make themselves more attractive to women is ick and cringe. He should just be something she chooses, not something made into what she chooses, because that implies that he had control and agency over her choice.
Compare and contrast "falling" in love; the key is falling. They want to fall, not grow into love.
I don't think there's any conflict with choice and self improvement here? Men self improving makes them a more appealing choice. The woman is still choosing, but individual men can make themselves more or less better options.
There's also the broader point that people aren't stable. They're almost always growing or degrading one way or another. Being the kind of guy that works hard and goes to the gym will make you wealthy and hot.
Correct, there's no conflict here, but apply the same thing to a man "self improving" by practicing PUA game and suddenly people throw a fit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are absolutely right, and it's not even just in the right-wing media bubble. Telling men to get in shape, dress better, get a haircut, and develop better social skills is some of the most common mainstream dating advice for men. Leftists will generally give men the same advice. Another common bit of mainstream dating advice is to just treat women like human beings, which some people might think is "woke"... except if you interpret it correctly, it's actually not. Human beings have sexual desires, and treating women like human beings who have sexual desires is good advice. So is the advice to look better and develop better social skills.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you’re way overthinking this, people just find it funny that an internet weirdo who is obsessed with physical appearance and “mogging”, is himself “mogged” by people who don’t share his obsession. Sort of like watching the class know it all proven wrong.
Yeah, people find it funny because they don't actually know much about Clavicular, so they don't realize that he doesn't claim to be the most attractive man in the world.
I think I just about died watching the Piers Morgan interview at the part where Piers asks with a completely straight face what “jestermaxing” is, and it takes a few back and forths to reveal that Clav thinks that jestermaxing is bad.
More options
Context Copy link
It's just inherently funny to see someone trying to maxx a trait get mogged by someone who isn't trying. Has nothing to do with whether or not he claims to be the most attractive man on the planet or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The judge is not mogging him based on looks but based on authority (and camera angles in this instance I think). If he were not a judge this guy wouldn't be mogging anyone.
More options
Context Copy link
Obligatory TracingWoodgrains post.
The normative standard that Clavicular violates is that exterior physical beauty is, and more importantly ought to be, reflective of inner beauty. An ugly person could not deliver this message, because he would also violate this normative standard. The catharsis of seeing Clavicular get "mogged" comes from Clavicular's unnatural, unearned, and unreflective beauty being shown to be vain in contrast to the natural "earned" beauty which is reflective of the true inner virtue of the gigachad interlocutor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link