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 -
Good luck with that. Your best option is to look among new immigrants, preferably from some Asian country, modern US people are raised with attitude of temporarily embarrassed princes and princessess who feel any hint they should count money and consider the costs as mortal insult to their noble status and honor.
Imagine how Marie Antoinette felt when hubby told her: "Honey, you have enough palaces, you do not need another!"
The age of bourgeoisie counting every penny is over, the age of aristocracy is back.
Sadly true. There was some significant reee-ing in the lastest doordash discourse on twitter (which kicked off with some guy saying you shouldn't be eating lunch out every day when you're making 70k in the US) with too many taking the position that taking a lunch to work was living worse than a medieval peasant.
I find the guy's point regarding eating out to be so trivially correct as to be unobjectionable, which proves I'm old and out of touch.
I mean, it is Twitter. Bringing lunch to work is extremely normal in the USA.
More options
Context Copy link
These people, of course, were overwhelmingly self identifying as left, with bios full of symbols of correct current year, month and day causes.
Black lives matter! Trans women are women! Free Palestine! Cooking your own food is ableist, Doordash is human right!
But America is still land of opportunity, just follow teachings of the great guru Shagbark the Hobo King, and you too can find true frugal wife happy to live in shack and eat roadkill.
True trad Christian one, ofc, the atheist would want to do ..umm... nasty things to the roadkill, see the other current xitterstorm.
Usual example in "no god no morals, atheists owned!" eternal discourse is rape and murder, the xitter apologists recently upped the ante.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I realized a while back that a lot of women were raised in McMansions with parents who basically paid for everything, from cars to clothes to fancy knick knacks, and of course university education, from the time she could walk.
And inherently, they will expect the same from their spouse. But that's impossible for a normal guy in early-adult stages to procure.
By becoming as wealthy as we have, we've now made it so that the general norm of "you, a dirt poor peon, marry another dirt poor peon, and gradually build your life up to a higher standard" a thing of the past.
Women who came up in prosperity would inherently have to accept a (temporary!) standard of living hit to marry a guy in his early-mid twenties, unless his family is massively wealthy. Women are generally wired to never, EVER accept a loss in status and standing and so this thought is probably vomit-inducing.
And there's now ample evidence that women, when given economic/financial advantages, tend to opt against having families/kids.
Again the solution is to economically boost men, or at least, stop the policies that are economically de-boosting them.
If only such support ended at HS or college. One occasionally meets a girlboss in their 30s who spends every dime on travel and clothing and eating out because her parents are still providing the apartment, car, and maybe even spending money. And she expects the future husband to be able to provide that level of living. Made for some entertaining first dates.
"Oh, I love Paris. I try to visit twice a year. How often do you travel abroad?"
"I've never left the US. My idea of travel is hiking and camping for 10 days without a shower."
Some Noticing from Capital One supports the online wrongthinker hypothesis that young women are racking up debt and/or are getting subsidized by boyfriends/parents so they can have the rightful FUN they deserve.
Before taxes!
I can only imagine the spending to income ratio would be even higher for young attractive women, all else equal. Like Daniel Tosh remarked, being an ugly chick is like being a man: you’re going to have to work.
From what I’ve seen of a lot of young women, stuff like make-up, nails, new clothes are non-negotiable monthly expenses like food or rent, in addition to other FUN expenses like restaurants, festivals, and traveling.
Tiresome status: It’s all so.
More options
Context Copy link
On the one hand its a natural thing. If the parents are doing really well, making sure their kids are comfortable (and, more directly, making sure their beloved Katie never has to do porn or shack up with a drug dealer) is what they would do as an extension of their established role.
The second/third order effect of "Katie now expects to live in a 5000 square foot house and drive a late-model SUV and will reject anyone who can't offer that" is a little harder to see.
The very SECOND I hear that a woman has left the country on vacation more than once (with the exception of Mexico travel, I guess), I pretty much know my chances have dropped to negligible.
I guess maybe this is another thing where my background influences what I've seen, but as far as I can tell I've never been on a date with a woman who had this kind of lifestyle. Especially the "looking for a man to offer that almost seems like looking not only for a provider who can add meaningfully to the dual household income, but looking for a man who can bankroll an entire lifestyle, and I've genuinely never encountered that. Together we can afford these lifestyle choices is familiar to me; marriage after all has financial advantages. But this is the sort of thing that appears deep into a relationship, not up front.
Is this a lower-middle-class/upper-middle-class split thing? Regional? I've tended to date people who come from modest households.
Well-traveled girlboss who has a family subsidizing her lifestyle: I went on first dates with two. I've worked with another two (I'm a government lawyer, so I'm hardly in a high-earning demographic).
I'd have to ask him for exact numbers, but my brother went on first dates with at least 6 women like this. More than one was very blunt up front that saving for a family was a man's job (and she had saved nothing to that point), and being in a relationship meant he would need to make sure she was kept in the lifestyle she wanted. These were not women from wealthy families, but much of their parents' money seemed to be spent subsidizing their (usually only) daughter.
Just like with trust funders, these "soft" trust funders are more numerous than you might expect.
More options
Context Copy link
I think there's women like this out there.
I think they are extremely hard to locate if you don't already know them or their families.
The ones who expect foreign travel are hard to locate? Or the ones who don't?
Ones who expect foreign travel.
I mean, you see them on dating apps a lot, but I think they're just harder to pin down dint of being so traveled.
Not really a big point either way. Lots of women advertise their preference for traveling.
Its slightly rarer that one has been actually well traveled in their youth.
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
Marie Antoinette was not responsible for the opulence of Versailles, and probably hated it. Her palace at Petit Trianon is the least blinged-out part of the whole complex.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link