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 -
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.
So much ink spilt and do much of it in volleys denying sexist motives while accusing the other side of sexist motives. Is anyone here even against something like a really strongly socially enforced monogamy? Just sure the other gender wouldn't go for it? Is there not some common ground at can find?
I don’t think it’s a good idea. It’s not either sex that wouldn’t go for it, it’s the broader edifice of liberalism.
This is a subject that turns avowed conservatives into communists. Expecting powerful social enforcement to stamp down inequality is the most archetypal authleft solution. Given any reasonable level of freedom, it’s going to lose out to structures which work with rational self-interest instead of against it. I’m not willing to throw out enough liberties to make up the difference.
Then again, I suppose I must be on the good side of this inequality. I’ve got my job, my prospects, and my girlfriend I met in college. No property, yet, but that can change. Despite what other respondents might suggest I’ve never dated a girl who was a crazed gold digger or a sociopath. So perhaps it’s just my privilege telling me to let freedom ring.
And avowed communists into conservatives. If hypocrisy exists, it goes both ways.
"Authleft"? I would just "left" or even centre sufficies, given that thinking reducing (economic) inequality is beneficial, is by no means restricted to tankies.
I don’t follow. How does it make communists into conservatives? What tankies are coming out and campaigning for monogamy? Maybe there are examples from post-Mao China…
Enforcing a preferred social structure from above is quintessentially authoritarian. That’s true in the case of wealth inequality, and it’d be true if applied to marriage.
It makes tankies into conservatives when they argue in favor of a (sexual) free market, with winners, losers, and those with absolutely nothing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you want to eliminate welfare for those who can't compete economically?
Eliminate? No.
Reduce? Probably.
Reform? Definitely.
I’m not exactly a card-carrying libertarian. I do, however, think that sexual market controls go too far.
What sexual market controls do we have? Or are you speaking hypothetically?
Hypothetically since I was answering this question:
I am against it, in theory, because I don’t see how you get to that level of social enforcement without trampling individual liberties. “Market controls” probably isn’t quite the right analogy, depending on who’s doing the trampling. It’s definitely not a description of the relatively laissez-faire onanism we have currently.
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