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.
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
More options
Context Copy link