site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32911 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More debates revolving around young single men in the mainstream media. Particularly, who the young women are dating due to them being disproportionately in a relationship. The article provides some insight, stating that many are dating older men and each other. This has led to a more intresting conversation of if older men are increasingly monopolizing women. Leaving younger guys out to dry supposedly, however a good chunk (acutally half, according to study from pew research). The data gives two large reasons, mainly: Having other shit to do & just like being single. What i always found frustrating with the mainstream progressive view of this matter is that they seem hell bent on blaming Men for this problem. Greg Matos, who wrote this (in)famous article which pretty much embodies the progressive view on the matter, has stated: “Women don’t need to be in long-term relationships. They don’t need to be married. They’d rather go to brunch with friends than have a horrible date,”. The argument from the mainstream being in a nutshell: that these single men are misogynistic, shitty bums and deserve to die alone. That take leads to some rather intresting conclusions however, when looking at the data. From the first pew research link and another one. The people who are most likely to be single are men who are: Black, young, only highschool educated, low income, and living with mom and pops. Are we suppose to assume, blacks, the youth, poor men, men without degrees, and guys without their own place are inferior romantic partners, and or more misogynisitic than their rich, old, white, college educated, apartment renting counter-parts?

Could it not simply be that these mens moral characters are fine, but they simply lack the resources and experience many women desire? Is such a thing their fault? Is the black man to become white? Or the poor man rich (or at least reasonably middle class)? Could there not be barriers preventing them from achieving such feats? In most cases, progressives would be open to outside forces interfering with ones ability to succeed. The matter is being treated as if all of this is entirely within their control, and their failures are a simple matter of poor character. The issue appears far more complex is you ask me.

Perhaps a bit of a divergent, but the entire dilemma has led me to a larger question of how much of life success (in dating, in work, in school) amounts to hard work. There was a post about on star slate codex sub reddit about how good IQ was at predicting life success. There is a bunch data about how expensive being poor is, poverty traps, and how difficult escaping it can be. Disputes over gender wage gaps. Not to mention all the discussions being had about how race impacts such outcomes. Id be interested if there was some huge of huge meta study done on what percentage of these factors (IQ, class, race, gender, ect) all impact your chances at life success, if anyone had such information on hand. Though my intuition tells me that such a study would be insanely difficult to do, if it even exists.

This Twitter thread has some good takes, but notice the catch: It assumes heterosexual monogamy.

I think it really might be that simple. You don’t need to force women back into the kitchen. You don’t need government-mandated gfs. You just have to enforce heterosexual monogamy (I am considering hook-ups and excessive serial monogamy to be forms of poly under this framework.)

You just have to enforce heterosexual monogamy (I am considering hook-ups and excessive serial monogamy to be forms of poly under this framework.)

Based on reading all the discussion in this thread, I don't think that "just" belongs there. It seems like one of those Very Hard things to accomplish, not least because any time someone tries to come up with suggestions on how to do that, lots of others accuse them of using that as camouflage for their actual desire of forcing women back into the kitchen. The normalization of trying to divine someone else's True Intentions by taking the worst possible interpretation of their words and then running with it has been disastrous for the human race, but preventing that also seems like one of those Very Hard things to do, if not outright impossible.

If we seriously wanted to do this it would realistically need to factor power and wealth into the degree of enforcement.

In the same way that crack and powdered cocaine were treated very differently for a long time due to different social strata using one substance over the other you would have to treat a working class aspiring womanizer differently from a successful business owner banging his maid.

If you did that you could have memes around the idea that if you "make it someday" you can have all the sexual freedom/degeneracy that you want. The same way that you get blue collar workers to defend low maximum tax rates, because people like to delude themselves into thinking that they will be winners eventually. Even when there is no evidence to support that.

Naively trying to apply the same restrictive morality on all classes won't go anywhere though. There will always be another Epstein because there will always be demand for...that. So you better factor that into your considerations.

In the same way that crack and powdered cocaine were treated very differently for a long time due to different social strata using one substance over the other

As a complete aside: I keep seeing this story used as an illustration of subtle racism. White cocaine users get off scot-free, black crack users get the crackdown. But aren't poor crack users much, much, much more likely to be a general nuisance to their surroundings an engage in crime to get their fix? Someone who can afford to do cocaine probably doesn't need to rob the closest gas station to get his fix. Granted, the cocaine user might also be more likely to engage in financial fraud, but that seems at least not directly related to the drug.

This is correct, and in fact, black community leaders lobbied for the increased crack penalties, because the black crack users were primarily a menace to their own communities.

From WNYC:

What's less well-known is that early on, many African-American leaders championed those mandatory minimum sentences and other tough-on-crime policies. These efforts could be seen at the federal and state levels, as well as across black communities such as Harlem.

...

Barker and others argue that in the 1960s, residents of black neighborhoods felt constantly under threat from addicts and others associated with the drug trade, and their calls for increased safety measures resonated at community meetings, in the pages of black newspapers like 'The Amsterdam News,' and in churches.

Based on reading all the discussion in this thread, I don't think that "just" belongs there. It seems like one of those Very Hard things to accomplish, not least because any time someone tries to come up with suggestions on how to do that, lots of others accuse them of using that as camouflage for their actual desire of forcing women back into the kitchen.

Case in point: Jordan Peterson, who explicitly used "enforced monogamy" and was accused of basically wanting Islamotheocracy style restrictions.

I think he shot himself in the foot by using that term. I had never heard it before and my first impression was also that it was something extreme. 'Enforced' isn't a word that goes down well in today's liberal world.

There seems to be lots of historical precedent for heterosexual-monogamous cultures (not least of which the West before the sexual revolution). I’m not sure exactly how much “enforcement” would be needed in practice. You don’t need to stamp out adultery entirely, you just need sufficient coercive or cultural pressure to force everyone interested in sex to pair up and have reasonable certainty who the parents of their children are.

There seems to be lots of historical precedent for heterosexual-monogamous cultures (not least of which the West before the sexual revolution).

Sure, but do we have historical precedent for transitioning from a culture similar to the West now - i.e. post-sexual revolution - to a heterosexual-monogamous culture, though? Also while satisfying some other constraints like keeping the current mostly-democratic government structure intact or gender equality (for however one chooses to interpret the term)? When the cat's out of the bag, the knowledge that it used to be in there at one point - and even intimate details about what that looked like - doesn't help us much in figuring out how to put it back in.

Sure, but do we have historical precedent for transitioning from a culture similar to the West now - i.e. post-sexual revolution - to a heterosexual-monogamous culture, though?

I always hear about the Weimar Republic being very decadent, did the Nazis manage to do it?

Sure, but do we have historical precedent for transitioning from a culture similar to the West now - i.e. post-sexual revolution - to a heterosexual-monogamous culture, though?

The fall of Rome?

Technological conditions too different. Industrial-scale manufacturing of synthetic hormone and fertility-control therapies change everything.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats