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 -
And what happened thereafter to the marriage rates, marriage age, and birth rate?
Uh no it was about 21 for men during the USA baby boom, what are you talking about? In antiquity is was also around 21. Do you think 22 year old men are middle aged?
On X they're calling this capeshit history. That means it's storybook fantasy. A neat, little, visual, graspable event « kicked off » everything. Oh boy! It's like a little modern Homeric myth! When the reality is what happened is some esoteric cohort effects caused peoples' instincts to shift and so on.
Yes, male age at marriage reached a temporary minimum in between the two sexual revolutions. But we actually have male age at marriage data about as well as could ever be expected, and historical male ages at marriage tended to be late twenties or early thirties. Moralists just before the first sexual revolution recommended 25+, Romans talked about 30 as ideal and normative- and what data exists suggest these were, broadly, reflecting general norms.
Marriage rates declined with the second sexual revolution. That's bad. But the norms in between the two sexual revolutions were not durable or sustainable.
You are way off, sorry. None of this is true.
You're just making that up.
Shame on him for not pre-emptively sourcing you, but greater shame on you for replying with "nuh uh". @hydroacetylene is in fact correct.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-demographic-economics/article/marriage-age-ushape/F94BC91AFF2CF4A9B5031C52476B06D9
(U shaped marriage age)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern
(Late age of marriage for bothe men and women in europe)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_and_Days
(Late Recommended age of marriage for men)
...
Argue a priori, argue a posteriori, or ask for sources. Don't "nuh uh."
Age of first marriage for men until recently didn't get much above 25, with about a 4 year age gap. Now it's over 30 with a 2 year age gap. The current situation is much more different from the historical norm than the 1950s nadir at about 22 with a slightly over 2 year age gap.
no but you see this is good because young men expecting to have sex with young women (to say nothing of the opposite) even in the confines of a marriage is bad
imagine having sex with women that are actually young, couldn't be me, i hagmax like Ben Franklin
if we could we'd push age of marriage up to 40, 50, 60 because they'd be more mature then and more cognizant of the risks, that would be good
especially because most of us are already unhappily married and we want to help our kids avoid that, but we have no idea how to do that so we just tell them to delay it and they trust us, dumb fucks
imagine marriage was an important part of living life, and imagine that you'd ever want to maximize the amount of fulfilling life time you (or others) will get
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