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.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Anorexia Nervosa is often brought up as a result of body dysphoria and mostly impacts women.
A lady in my local area got arrested and made international headlines for Injecting fix-a-flat into womens' buttocks 15 years ago.
The popular "Brazillian Butt Lift" procedure can lead to literal fat necrosis and associated smell. In fact, in searching up that article I just learned that they're allegedly one of the most dangerous procedures around, death rates around 1 in 4000 or worse????
Probably an honorable mention about tanning beds and skin cancer.
There was in fact a recent, award winning horror film about the implications of womens' constant drive for maintaining beauty. The titular substance is in fact a dangerous drug.
But if you want max irony, the 'Body Positivity/fat acceptance' trend, which results from the insistence that you can be beautiful at any size (but only if you're a woman) has seen quite a number of its top advocates die while arguing against the need to pursue standard beauty practices. So in a way, failure to push women to pursue beauty is also getting them killed.
Steroid and other drug use has been offing bodybuilders for decades now (RIP Zyzz), so its a bit hard for me to see Clavicular's regimen as anything but a tiny iteration off pre-existing practices, and ironically probably more practical for the average guy.
You're not describing practices that anyone is condoning.
To be fair to @faceh, a lot of people are at least tolerating them. You can have BBL done at respectable plastic surgery clinics.
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