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.
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.
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.
...which makes sense, because the PUA/Game materials are overwhelmingly not about self-improvement, betterment, wellbeing or personal growth as much as grimoires teaching manipulation, deceit, and an approach of smoke and mirrors to get up the skirts (or down the pants, for Americans) of women.
I remember Neil Strauss's book back in the day had its share of how to be "your best self" segments (it was very readable) but his original strain of PUA seems to have been subsumed by the more opportunistic, commodified variety schooling young men to use, for lack of a better word, trickery. Guys who buy into that schtick (literally spending money) deserve a certain amount of sympathy, but then feeling pity for them is the aphrodisiacal equivalent of tarring them with feces.
I don't see too much difference. Improving one's ability to manipulate others is a life skill I consider near critical for existence in the modern era. There are entire fields of industry built off the ability to deceive their customers and smoke and mirrors. How these abilities are applied, on the other hand, I'm with you.
Well, there's the Dale Carnegie how to win friends and influence people, and then there's the Machiavellian exploitation of others for one's own benefit, or to get one's rocks off. I see a difference.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link