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.
This whole conversation is just the result of the growing victimization crisis we have in society. Us men are in a better spot now than throughout all of history, and yet just like with everything else all anyone can do is be angry and cry that things don't match up with their ahistorical fantasies of the past.
The average man of history was not some rugged chad forging their way into the wild west nor were they the rich royal with their pick of the wenches. No, the average man lived crappy lives with only the crappy people around them in their hyperlocal area. Food was scarce, medicine was laughable, the only women you would get with were just the fellow peasants you happened to be around and most of your kids died before you even bothered to name them.
Now we live in a time of abundance. I met my wife through the Internet and we lived several states away at the same time. We hit it off in personality and interests and we have children. Before, I would have just been forced to pair with whatever local peasant was available and now I get someone who matches with me well instead. It's not to say it's perfect at every point, but any and all relationships between two different individuals will have areas where they differ and don't match perfectly. The soul mate is a lie and compromises must be made sometimes. She is not my perfect fantasy wife and I'm not her perfect fantasy husband, we're humans not dreams.
Perhaps the before system was better for the loser men who enjoy a win by default. A much lesser and lower quality win, but at least it's a win, something they can't get now. If there was a historical acknowledgement of the downsides there is an argument to be made that yes, for some people it was better. And yet what I see of these loser men today is that they want it all and won't settle. They want the abundant choice of having a top notch beauty who fulfills all their fantasies brought about by modernity, but they also hate that abundant choice means they have to match up as well. But they don't, won't, and can't because they're still the peasants like always. It's often accompanied of course with porn addled unrealistic standards of womanhood too, meaning even the weak concept they might have of settling and compromising has still been tilted towards the insane.
And yet many more men want to come to the US and other western nations (or Western like nations such as Japan) than those who want to leave. It's obvious why. Because as much as people want to complain and complain, they do truly understand that life is better here. Immigration levels are the ultimate rebuttal to anti west sentiments, the 2nd and 3rd worlders want to be here, we don't want to be there. Even when Americans do leave, it's almost always to other western nations. And even when they do move to non western nations, that is still mostly done by utilizing their immense wealth disparity to explicitly avoid the average life the natives there hold. They live in gated communities with security.
Just because it's better here than in shithole countries right now doesn't mean it's better here than it was twenty, thirty, or forty years ago.
You play to win the game, you don't play to just play. Or, in other words, winning is all that matters.
My goal is to make sure this isn't necessary in America, but we're sixty years or more down the slippery slope and don't have much evidence of slowing or reversing. It's these people who come from places where those walled cities are necessary that make it necessary in the US, too, so the fact that they want to come here really doesn't move me at all. They don't get what they want.
That's true, but presumably there should be mass desire for movement somewhere if we're fucking something up in a significant way and we just don't see it. Maybe the fuck up is universal, in which case we should question if it was ever solved to begin with and it's not just an ahistorical illusion glossing over the generic human experience. Or maybe it's the downside of a tradeoff where the upside is just too good, and the complaint is really just people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
There's gotta be some explanation for why no one can get things right and also be a country that people want to be in.
There are some incel losers who would benefit from state mandated girlfriends, because they simply will not have girlfriends otherwise. But for me, and many non losers like me, we would lose out. Relationships are not all equal quality. Sure I guess we still have girlfriends and wives, but the central bureaucracy would never care to grant me what I have now with my wife, someone who I get along with extremely well. I'll get some average fuck who I hate being around.
Because after all, the point of central bureaucracy in general is to parasite off the winners in pursuit of "fairness". They will inevitably fuck it up, the same way that central bureaucracy economies fuck up their harvests and their central heating and everything else. It's the entire point, the loser parasites must feast off something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link