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 -
Pardon my potential homophobia. But this is exactly is why I believe society must treat gay relationships (much like dinks, polycules or harems) as different, rather than treating them as 'straight relationships but with men'. Gay men think all sex is gay sex. By no fault of their own. Straight or gay, all commentary is projection. However, commentary on intimate and emotionally charged matters is especially prone to projection.
This analogy tracks for gay sex because all involved members are male. However for straight relationships, the Shiba Inu is rarely weaker than a female Rottweiler.
In gay relationships, a man can take on either roles in intimate settings. You're in continuous sexual competition. This isn't true for straight relationships. I imagine, gay relationships end up in micro-transactional interactions that don't naturally resolve into a blending of identities. I am not saying gay relationships are any less real. However, they don't have the same obvious entanglements as a conventional straight marriage.
The key difference ofc, is women bear children. One doesn't ask another person to surrender agency, undergo physical transformation, risk pain or risk death for free. Such an ask is even less defensible if it comes at no cost to the man. Therefore, when a man asks a woman to bear his children, he also surrenders himself in return. Take away the physical burden of child birth and coming together as one entity (parents) for child rearing, and you're missing the point of relationships all together. The gay dynamics of surrendering a body temporarily don't matter, because a woman must surrender her body permanently in service of child birth. For that, she doesn't need a physically dominant man to makes her feel safe. Physical safety matters, but emotional safety matters more.
On sex, I'm straight, so I too am projecting. However, men are simple creatures. As a straight man, if I get hard and horny, then finishing is practically guaranteed. Women on the other hand, are mazes. A woman does not have sex with the man in front of her, she has sex with the man in her mind and you give physical shape to it. It means that the narrative power of the story she tells herself and her suspension of disbelief play a bigger role in her eventual satisfaction than the objective reality of the physical man she finds in front of her. If a man has to use physical dominance to dominate, then that's a man that knows nothing about women or sex.
Now ofc, physical size helps. Controlling for everything else, a woman would prefer a taller and larger man to a scrawnier and shorter one. I also acknowledge, that in an era of visual swiping apps for strangers, women and men both tend to value the physical aspects more. But, there in lies in the fallacy of equating male attraction to female attraction. Female attraction isn't nearly as one dimensional as it is for men. Once you're in front of them, straight relationships evolve differently.
80 generations of careful reinforcement is very different from 80 generations of a random process. 80 generations of dingo mutts produces more dingo mutts. You may extend your dog analogy to humans once the smallest race of humans is 13x smaller than the largest.
Again, projection. Gay couples are 2 men who fuck each other. Straight relationships are completely different. Women yelling at husbands is a tale as old as time. If anything, the smaller the woman, the more they shout. The dynamics of whether it is abuse or agreed upon relationship transaction are known only to the couple.
Most recently, the 3 biggest waves of immigration to North America have been Chinese, Indian and Mexicans. All 3 are below average on the violent chad index. So, I'm not sure your point has statistical valence.
But since you asked twice, I will try my hand at it. It's an extension of 'weak men create hard times', or said another way: 'eradication of death diseases creates anti-vaxxers'; or 'peaceful times creates weak immune systems'; or 'I can fix him syndrome'. Western women believe economic-migrants and refugees are the most persecuted people of their respective societies. On the other hand, the people with a propensity for migration are the highest agency (highest volatility) actors, ie. violent men.
I can't improve on this video. So watch this video.
I've had the good fortune of being a relationship advisor to my female friends of various levels of attractiveness and sexual proclivity. (I was a committed man in a long-term & long-distance relationship). Women don't care about big men in the same way. It is one of their fantasies, but it isn't their main fantasy. Mr. Olympia Arnold is not attractive to them. Banderas in Zorro or Cary Elwes in Princess Bride ? That is like crack to them. These are still tall, masculine and handsome men. But, the fantasies they allow for is the real juice. All that being said, being tall and fit are obvious super useful to attracting a woman.
Your instinct is wrong. India has had a history of trans communities going back millennia. Chinese royal courts were chock full of castrated eunuchs. You're projecting an instinct acquired from the modern internet.
Every group sees itself as the most superior people on the planet. White people's post industrial-revolution dominance allows them to sustain that image. Other groups have fewer stories to sustain their narratives, but the impulse to see yourself and by extension, those you look like you as superior is a standard human impulse. Much like how my eyes wander even when I am in love with my partner, it is a natural impulse. To tame it is to be civilized. To feed it is to be barbaric.
Just got to this part. Looks like we're in agreement ? I must say, to tame it does not mean to reject it to reverse it. The liberal leftists are wrong for the same reason that right-wing looks-maxxers are wrong. The tension between the physical animal and cerebral mind need not resolve with the victory of one over the other. The tension can't be resolved, it can only be tamed. The goal of a civilized people is to find achievable peace and harmony between those 2 impulses in tension.
I believe the opposite. Post war America created suburban enclaves built on the explicit and later implicit segregation of the poor away from the rich. It was a deeply unequal society. Highways and suburban boundaries allowed so-called liberals to sustain an illusion of equality for Americans were equal within the confines of their suburban enclaves. Inner cities rotted and became hubs of crime.
New Delhi did the opposite. In his socialist arrogance, Nehru allowed any Indian to move where they wanted. irrespective of your birth, you were allowed to move and erect a slum on the side of the street. Your existence was dignified by affording you the greatest privilege : the ability to occupy the same spaces as the wealthy, and impose yourself on them as they impose themselves on you.
(aside - Much like you, I tend to choose the most provocative framing of obvious points. My girlfriend finds it tedious. Reading this sentence made me understand what it must feel like to be on the receiving end of it. Just yesterday I spend 30 minutes ranting about how most humans just want to be someone's working dog, but they don't want to acknowledge it because it feels dehumanizing. I was correctly called out on the stupid provocativeness of my point. After all, I was just saying that people want a purpose, which sounds much less profound. So....I understand)
To dominate is to influence without consent. There are many ways to influence - love, respect, reliability, narration, familiarity. You aren't saying anything new here. You're merely collapsing the rich experience of being human down to 1 dimension. It isn't wrong, but it is incomplete. That incompleteness is to the detriment of your point, because the meta point has been made by every person who has written a book on society. 'People want to be loved by their community'. Call it dominance, call it influence, call it what you want. It's as simple as that.
I guess I can conclude my counter point by framing it as:
"Any solution where the lying leaders drink their own kool aid is doomed to fail. Leaders must lie to sell necessary policy, but they must insulate themselves from their own propaganda. We are not above nature, but we need not be entirely subservient to it either. Harmony is cliche for a reason."
The presence of eunuchs isn't at all the same thing as "trans communities". They're not at all similar.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link