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 -
Has the Occident betrayed its young men?
I have been feeling intense abjection lately vis-à-vis my culture, and I wanted to explain why here. Much has been said about how the West treats its young men, particularly with respect to feminism and and wealth redistribution. But more and more, I have been feeling that the state of things is truly one of complete betrayal. Complete betrayal is weighty and generally seen as impossible to come back from. This is different from simply feeling that something is off.
My argument for it constituting complete betrayal starts with the following. Humans are fundamentally animals. As animals, they require resources and reproduction over everything else. The West provides a lot of distraction for its young men, that is true. It provides, certainly, a lot of education, whether they want it or not. Many such things are provided better than ever before. But at the end of the day, humans are animals and the true duty of a culture is to provide those it is loyal to with reproduction and resources, namely resources which convert to shelter, food, reproduction access, and child investment. Humans have a useful single number for all of this called money. So for a human animal, it is really about reproduction and money. Culture/society might provide young men with distraction, but does it provide a mate and an income?
I believe the situation is one of complete betrayal, because culture/society actually deeply interferes with young men getting income and reproduction, and does quite a lot to prevent it and keep young men alone and poor. This is nothing less than complete betrayal. Let me explain the specifics as to how this is done.
Sexually, every revision to law and culture in the last 100 years fit the pattern of preventing, delaying, or degrading the marriages of young men. Every prohibition that was dropped was a prohibition that served young men. This includes adultery laws and laws against divorce. Every prohibition that was strengthened is a prohibition against young men. These include prohibitions against marriage at certain ages and prohibitions against the husband's authority in the home, as well as prohibitions against having sex in many other circumstances, especially on university campuses, which in the late 20th century were the last great place for spouses to meet. On top of that, every sexually related cultural movement interferes with the reproduction of young men. LGBT is a great distraction and tells young men to have sex with each other instead of with women. Modern dating culture says have barren, temporary relationships with the opposite sex. Radical feminism teaches women to be functionally lesbian or asexual and otherwise to avoid romance with men. Taboos have been created to ostracize young men who criticize these cultural movements. It is extremely easy to imagine a culture that better serves its young men reproductively. The fact that it only ever gets worse is a sign of the betrayal.
Economically, credentialism has eaten away at the right of young men to have an income. They are now commanded to stay in school to later and later ages. When they work, the tax burden is immense; more and more money goes to foreigners, single women, and the old. Every government handout taxes young men and married men and pays out to women, children, pensioners, and foreigners. More controversially, I also believe young men are systematically underpayed when they do work, although mostly this goes to redistribute wealth to middle aged men, which young men become, so it's probably the least bad of all the problems and is best fixed by reversing the tax burden on young men from heavily taxed to becoming net receivers of welfare even while working. Credentialism also needs to be curtailed, and then younger men can build more marketable skills at younger ages, boosted their base at any given age pay insofar as the age-income correlation is meritocratic.
Young men pay taxes largely so family courts can threaten whatever marriages they do establish, instead of defending them, so that their money can go to the education system that robbed them of several years of income and work experience, so that their money can go to old retirees who set up this system, so it can go to immigrants and foreigners, so it can go to single women who won't get married, and so it can go to police who will arrest them if they ever end up breaking one of these back-breaking rules that were set up to oppress them. That's complete betrayal by culture & society.
What does complete betrayal imply? It means Western young men should never die for their country. Don't ever join the military. If you get drafted, dodge it if legally possible. Young men should never contribute to their country. Insofar as legal, enter a parasitic profession like finance and drain your country dry. They deserve it because they allow it and they hate young men anyway. Young men should leave their country; move away from the west. Start a city-state in Latin America with a charter from Honduras where young men are served and not betrayed. Go help develop a 2nd world country where young men are served and not betrayed. Pay taxes in the new country. If your old country demands taxes abroad, renounce your citizenship, because your country is a traitor.
In other words, young men are like a Jew in Christian Europe. They are hated by their neighbors, so lend to them and charge as much interest as possible. They are hated by their neighbors, so never fight invaders for them, strike a deal with them if they win. They are hated by their neighbors, so they should move between places and never settle in one place. They should demand maximal pay for minimal work, because they are hated by your neighbors. They should be a Zionist, and dream of the foundation of a new Israel. A place that does not despise them.
I appreciate feedback on this. Maybe I am overreacting or got something wrong here and the situation is not so dire. But as I have lived my life, this is the conclusion I've increasingly come to.
I do think it is important to have some perspective here. Individuals, men included, have never been freer. Mandatory conscription has declined since the cold war, education and knowledge is accessible to everyone, and outside of the big cities it is possible to live very cheaply as long as you don't mind having very few material possessions. No job can turn you into a wage slave. You are free to save up, quit, and live your life as you please. Wages are high enough that a single man with good financial sense can build savings over time.
Social mobility has never been easier. No longer are you bound to the same job that your father had. If you are born smart and driven, but low class, you are free to get an education, build connections at university and create a better life for yourself and your children. The social roles of gender and class have eroded, giving you more opportunities than ever before.
Male dominated jobs have never been safer. You are not going to die at 60 because your lungs were destroyed from inhaling dust at the factory. The western world has tons of regulations concerning ventilation, overtime, how much you are allowed to carry at once and so forth. If you do get an injury, modern medicine gives you better odds of recovery than your forefathers could have even dreamed of.
If you do initially fail to create a good life for yourself there are social safety nets that can catch you and potentially allow you to start over and learn from your mistakes. The strength of these depend on your country, but at the very least you are not going to starve.
A man who takes ownership of his life, builds an understanding of the world he lives in, and takes the initiative to improve his station has better chances than basically any man who came before him. The issue of course, is that young men are not raised to do this.
Where I agree with you is that society lies to young men. We are raised to be obedient and easy to manage, then bombarded with messages of how we are the cause of every problem in the world. We are taught to expend considerable effort on providing for minorities (anyone who isn't a white man) due to notions of guilt and fairness. Young men are taught to play it safe, avoid risks, and do only as others tell them. This completely fails to prepare them for a world that actually rewards risk taking, courage, independent thinking, and initiative.
Then, of course, there is the whole dating thing, where men are lied to about women want for their entire childhood, only to be ridiculed as adults for failing to attract any.
I do see problems, but overall I think your message can only hold true for men born into high social status. Historically, the majority of men have been largely considered as cheap disposable labor, and have led extremely harsh and thankless lives. For those, the current world by far outclasses what we had a hundred years ago. It isn't even close.
Not even close to true. Freedom on the frontier blows anything we have out of the water, and it's not close. You cannot have freedom in a panopticon, it's a misnomer.
Plenty of people have been much, much freer than this, and most of them are in the past of this very country.
The frontier of exploring the US only happened for a very short time. Maybe if you go back to the times before agriculture, you will see men be mostly well respected as members of their tribes. But for most of recorded history it seems clear to me, that the majority of men lived under conditions that would be considered borderline slavery in today's terms, essentially being forced to fulfill whatever role they happened to be born into.
I don't think 300 years is a short time, actually.
You are making a lot of assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with.
Freedom is not safety, and freedom is not leisure, and freedom is not prosperity, and freedom is not the ability to recover from mistakes. Those are all valuable in their own way, but they are not freedom.
Of course not, why would I? They're not me, they're not my people, they're not my ancestors, and they're not what we're talking about.
You are the one who first said "majority." I made no argument about numbers or proportions, just existence.
Some men have been much, much, much freer than I ever have been or ever will be, and I'm not going to sit here and let you say that I'm so free because I have medicine, but I can't own a gun and I have to get a permit to build a house. I say bullshit, that's not freedom. It might be prosperity, or it might be safety, but it isn't freedom. This freedom lasted for generations, and many chose not to take the chance because freedom isn't safety or prosperity. Now that choice is gone, and it's not coming back.
This is a discussion about whether society has betrayed men. Talking about the majority of men then is the point.
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