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 -
What if people are not getting into relationships and having sex, because they want less children?
did we miss the entire sexual revolution? pills condoms homosexuality implants all let you fuck childfree. no, people aren't having sex because people think sex is either so sacred it must be had with the perfect partner that doesn't exist and if its not sacred its just inefficient masturbation so just jerkoff to ai waifu at home and avoid the mess of other people.
I think they fail to find the perfect partner because the come to marriage at an age when romantic pairbonding parts of the brain are less sensitive. They come to marriage late because they only want one or two kids. Teenage girls always seem to be madly in love with their boyfriends, and the romance just isn't there by the age of 27 in the same way. I think that's physical.
Possibly it's because those women get jaded by past experiences and/or exposed to more and more anti-male propaganda. But on the other hand, it seems to be the case that teenagers feel the effects of hormones more strongly. So yeah, likely there is a physical component as well.
Not just hormones. I think there's a critical period or something for marriage and modern people miss it and don't realize it. It's probably between about 14 and 22, give or take. For women. Men are probably a little later, like 17 and 25.
Women marrying before 22 was never the default in cisHajnal societies (and transHajnal societies where women married younger didn't really do love marriage) so 22 as the upper end of the optimal range for female love marriage is too high.
My own marriage is a point in favour of the "dating jadedness, not chronological age" thesis - my now-wife and I did the whole teen romance thang with all the cringe you would expect in our mid-20s, having both only been meaningfully on the dating market for 1-2 years (in my case, late acquisition of required social skills due to likely autism).
Well, it was for the people who lived in the Hajnal area before about 1500 AD. Hajnal societies only emerged in the early modern period. They're historically abnormal and are going extinct, so maybe not a great exemplar to use.
Not true.
Maybe the range is a bit larger then but I doubt it extends past 30. It probably depends on the person.
They're also the only societies that produced modernity, and empirically the societies that go extinct slowest under conditions of modernity (except Modern Orthodox Jews). A RETVRN to goatfucker patriarchy is impossible, because even a suburban McMansion doesn't have a big enough lawn to graze the goats.
This doesn't really make sense. Hajnals invented stuff because of high IQ, not their degenerate marriage practices. With science, one doesn't need magical thinking about particular random historical groups where you cargo cult their successes and adopt all their practices whole-sale. You can just have high IQ people who are historically normal in other ways, and these people will invent things and also have a TFR above 2 because they will get married young and have a lot of babies.
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