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 -
Are we entering a new phase of the gender wars? To pull a term from Asmongold: "the age of the chud." That is to say: openly, unapologetically sexist men, who don't even try to hide it or justify it.
I can't exactly prove any of this, so I'm just going to list a bunch of anecdotes and vibes to show what I mean. You can decide for yourself if you agree or disagree.
The story thus far: for most of human history, humans had a patriarchy where men controlled most positions of power. Starting in 1919 with the 19th amendment in the US, and a similar date in most European countries, women got the right to vote and generally got legal equality with men. But certain social and institutional barriers remained, so 3rd wave feminists worked to gradually push back and get more rights and power for women. This was generally seen as a good thing by all, with only the most unashamedly reactionary men being opposed.
In the 80s and 90s, this was mostly done by trying to treat everyone the same, with the hope that taking away men's sexism would naturally create equality with men. But over time this proved insufficient, so left-leaning groups started pushing for more and more efforts to actively favor women. This was seen most acutely in corporate recruiting, where companies would heavily recruit in trying to get more women in male-leaning professions, especially engineering and management, and punish heavily anyone who was accused of making women feel "unwelcome." Male employees who wanted to fit in were forced to learn academic feminist jargon, and generally act like an "ally," regardless of their own personal views.
But has any of this actually worked? Well... no. Or at least, it's hit a wall. Engineering and the physical trades remain stubbornly male dominated. Women do a bit better in management, but only when they can sit in large meetings and avoid personal responsibility for anything. Their strong preference remains fields like nursing, HR, and marketing.
On a more personal level, I think any of us who have paid attention long enough have seen the cycle play out long enough to become jaded. Talking like a feminist might get you some kudos ("good boy points"), but it won't get you respected as a thinker- you're still expected to do your duty as an ally by following behind the female leaders. It certainly won't get you laid, which admittedly is not the fairest way to judge an ideology, but it does tend to influence the thinking of young men. It also won't get you the respect of other men, unless they're the most simptastic of feminist men who will still dislike you for being a man. It doesn't seem to get you anything at all, no matter how well you articulate the feminist talking points.
Enter: the chud. Or "C.H.U.D." if you will, since the term comes from an 80s movie where it's an acronym, but it's recently become internet slang for the sort of man who openly embraces reactionary cultural politics, without any veneer of intellectualism. They seem to have found a new way to play the game: you don't debate the feminists, you don't even try, you just do whatever the hell you want and ignore them, while openly embracing some of the worst stereotypes. Trump was probably the trailblazer here, with his total lack of shame, but lots of guys have learned this power.
At the same time, there's been a resurgance in traditional feminine behavior. Things like wearing makeup, lipstock, playing with dolls, openly crying, doing needlework, and sometimes even wearing sexy clothes. For a while these sorts of things were demonized by the more militant wing of the feminist movement, to the point where women felt a bit guilty for indulging in them, but now it seems like they're admitting that it's ok for women to have their traditional feminine interests too. And lots of chuds eat this up, too. I've also noticed a lot more games have blatant fan service in them, almost to the point where I'm numb to it, but this is a level of T&A that would have been protested if it was in old movies.
For a long time, the practical center on feminism was that it was good for the economy. Left or right, everyone agreed that we needed more women in the workforce to grow the economy. But with AI and automation, that's much less clear. So many white collar jobs are getting automated, and it's only going to get worse. Every new woman in the office is simply competition with a man for the same scarce job. The place where we actually need women is at home, having babies, and that doesn't seem to be happening nearly enough.
I think we're on the verge of rolling back a lot of feminism. I know you might say "oh, that's just internet talk, no one actually believes that in real life." But the internet is where we go to talk politics now. If you can win on the internet, you win in real life, too. We might see corporate and political groups stop trying to recruit women, and men being openly sexist again.
As an example, consider our new Secretary of War (that's war, not defense), Pete Hegseth. He opposes feminism, says that women should not be in combat roles, and has instituted mandatory testosterone testing for the military. He's also just generally blunt and aggressive in the way he talks. The left hates him but... he's still in charge. In his personal life, he is twice divorced due to having a lot of affairs.
Or consider JD Vance. He's a lot more intellectual than Hegseth, but still something of a chud. He opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and childlessness in general. He's flirted with the idea that parents should have more voting rights than non-parents. He wants to "de-woke-ify" all federal institutions. He's saying all kinds of things that would have gotten me fired from most corporate jobs, and yet there's a strong chance that he'll become president.
On a final note, consider the voting demographics. In pretty much every election, the women trend left and the men trend right. If only men voted, the right would basically win every election easily. And that's true internationally, not just in the US. So I'm sure there are a few strategists thinking... "hmm... are we sure we can't repeal that 19th amendment? Or at least make it more difficult for women to vote?" Because that would be an instant knockout blow to the left.
I will say, I don't support any of this. I still consider myself something of a feminist, and I wouldn't fit in at all in a world of chuds. But... I see the appeal, especially for young men, and I think that might be where the world is trending, unless the world finds a more reasonable compromise in the gender wars.
It was men who created the left as well as the right. It was men who did the French revolution as well as the Russian one. It was men who handed the vote to women. The strategists can think all they want, men make stupid mistakes all the time, too, and enfranchising women is a mistake that can be repeated. Especially in a world in which the right has only a very tenuous hold on power, and in which most people, institutions, media and governments are strongly on the left.
The gender wars in the West will be won by men totally and unconditionally, because women have sold out to their own enemies. Inshallah.
Edit: Sorry, that wasn't speaking plainly. I mean that women implemented unchecked mass muslim immigration, and the likely consequence of this is that Western countries will soon be Muslim countries, with Muslim laws and customs, eliminating feminism and putting women back in their places.
I don't see that happening in the majority of them. A more likely outcome is that eventually after a lot of rape and bloodshed the normies will eventually wake up. If this happens soon enough there will be riots, bloodshed and mass deportations, but then they will recover. If it happens later there will be civil wars and/or genocide. But I suspect the native populations will come out on top due to superior technology, entrenchment in their locality, and the ability to enlist the aid of allies in the event of literal civil war (ie the U.S.) Progressivism's primary path to victory is in superficial virtue signalling in which the majority of people inflict costs on people other than themselves. Once the majority of people's safety is threatened it will fall from grace. It's just a question of collateral damage.
No. You have fundamentally misunderstood what progressivism is.
Progressivism is the reification of female political power. Everything a progressive does is downstream of that.
Female political power is not reduced when immigrants devalue the youngest (or future) women by raping or murdering them. Indeed, it actually increases- less intra-gender competition means more power for the average woman (socialize gains, privatize losses). Hence, women will aid and abet those crimes, and use their power to force men to do the same.
When the wages of women drop relative to those of men, progressivism recedes, like it did in the 1950s. Women now have to compete with each other more for access to men, so their political power drops. Society thus becomes more aligned with what men want.
When the wages of women rise relative to those of men, progressivism accelerates, like it did in the early 1900s. Men now have to compete with each other more for access to women, so their political power drops. Society thus becomes more aligned with what women want.
How does that alignment happen, and what does it affect? Basic commoditization of the compliment predicts it. Each gender will instinctively use their power to erase the distinction between members of the other gender and enhances the distinction between members of their own gender. So, women will want mass male immigration and men will want mass female immigration- women prioritize safety, emphasize feelings, and prioritize capital to protect their source of worth (and that denies the worth/framing of the mechanisms upon which men compete with men, rendering men interchangeable); men prioritize freedom, emphasize rules, and prioritize labor as ways to protect their source of worth (and that denies the worth/framing of the mechanisms upon which women compete with women, rendering women interchangeable).
If AI devalues female labor more than male labor, the future will be less progressive.
If it does not, the future will be more progressive.
Simple as.
If AI companies manage to send the US into the next Great Depression society will (as a response) change just as much as it did in the 1930s, but it is the effects on the relative power of the average man and woman at that time (and not their absolute power) that will determine how things actually go.
This seems like too static/linear of a view when the actual dynamics are nonlinear. It might be the case that when the muslim population is small then the marginal increase in muslim acceptance might align with female political power. But if we reach a state of muslims actually becoming a substantial voting block in their own right and trying to institute shariah law this would significantly curtail female political power and outweighs any of these more subtle effects. I can't see the broader white female population sitting down and accepting that.
When people on the center or right say "Islam was right about women", the left doesn't agree and then continue with what they're doing, they get mad at the very concept and play word games and have cognitive dissonance. This is only possible when they have no skin in the game, when the islamists are still rare enough that they themselves are not affected. They don't literally want Shariah law, they are in denial about it being a realistic possibility. If reality actually threatens them with Shariah law they will step back and have regrets, precisely because that threatens their female political power and actual daily lives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe some will escape. The Eastern ones. Poland. Hungary. But most seem to share the same dynamics.
The anti-immigration or even pro-remigration "normies" will not have a simultaneous, coordinated mass awakening. The coordination isn't there, and the institutions and in fact quite a large number of people who are also "normies" but solidly pro-immigration are actively working against them and they won't stop anytime soon. There is no monolithic entity waiting to rise up, no sword brotherhood, no organization large enough to make a difference and overcome the forces that are already practised hands at maintaining the pro-immigration status quo. Pardon me, but your vision is wishful thinking.
The natives and the immigrants have access to the same technology. And much technology that matters in the modern day is centralized, and those centers are in the hands of pro-immigration entities.
The natives are almost as deracinated, atomized and globalized as the immigrants. Perhaps even more so, culturally.
The US has hardly been the stalwart opponent of mass migrations the globe over. There aren't any other allies either.
Progressivism has already won the war on demographics, politics and culture. The virtue signalling has always just been one tool out of many. Europe is a dead civilization, walking on only on inertia. At the last count that I heard, 43% of all children in Germany were of immigrant stock. Not all of them may be Muslims, and not all of the Muslims may favor islamic culture over Europe, but the tendencies are clear - Europe is sclerotic, incapable of decisive action, in fact actively disposed against it, has no claim on Leitkultur, is unable to assimilate newcomers, does not deter newcomers either, the newcomers' countries of origin are not about to stop exporting people, and the newcomers are overwhelmingly muslim and more fertile than the natives. Future generations will be majority muslim. The countries of Western Europe will be muslim countries before the century is out.
The time for that was ten years ago, or much earlier. People have safety and prosperity enough to remain pacified as the world that gave them their safety and prosperity ends.
I repeat for emphasis: The conflict is already resolved, the war is lost, the progressives have won, permanently and irreversibly, and anything to the contrary is wishful thinking.
I will personally continue to do what little I can to spite them, but I am under no illusions as to the course of history.
I'll take the other side of statement, and say that they are perfectly capable of it, and what you've been describing is a result of that fact.
Please elaborate.
It's not that deep, but looking at everything that's happening in Europe, I find it hard to believe this is happening as a result of naive optimism and/or a misunderstanding that was cemented by our leaders being sclerotic and indecisive. Any native pushback is being coordinated against with military-like precision and discipline. Media are deployed to create hit pieces, information is censored, vast resources are deployed to ensure things go the way they are going now (orders of magnitude more than it would cost to prevent them from happening).
Simply put, I'm taking the "treason" side of the "stupidity or treason" dillema.
[I'm speaking generally of many different countries' leaders around the world when I say: I believe] It's because they think they need more workers or else everything will be even worse. They think a declining population is "the end of the world" / has worse consequences than anything else, so they HAVE to shore up population numbers, by any means necessary.
[IMO] They're wrong. They've overlooked how bad the consequences of other things can be. A declining population is not the only possible situation with very bad consequences. But it's what they think.
Is "Prioritize maintaining population numbers over everything else, therefore coordinate with desperate skill to knowingly go against the wishes of your people, all with a self-satisfied attitude/assumption of knowing better than the benighted rubes" stupidity or treason? IMO could be described as either. The attitude problem encourages the hostile "treason" assumption. But I call it, really, hubris.
They think they're doing the right thing for the people they think they know better than. Well, and I think I know better than them.
(BTW. I realized this most thoroughly and clearly from reading The [End of the] World] [is Just the] Beginning by Peter Zeihan. Great title BTW. And he details what he expects the consequences of depopulation will be.)
I don't buy that, because a cursory look at the relevant numbers shows that immigrants are a net financial drain. That made some sort of sense for intra-European migration, but makes zero sense for the sort of immigration that people create drama over.
And if they really actually believed that argument, they would have a public debate on it, not lie and scramble to control the conversation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Understood. You may be correct. Perhaps it is treason. But it can't be all treason - I do see a great big lot of stupidity.
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
More options
Context Copy link