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 -
It's more of a royal you. I don't know enough about your situations exactly it really feel qualified to offer advice. But I have heard to arguments, and to some extent I've even made them before. I guess this is me communing lessons learned to the folks out there stuck in the blackpill-doomerist feedback loop.
Yes, but as I think people are pointing out in other areas, broad statistical metrics aren't actually that good of indicators of what is really happening. Off the top of my head, most dating statistics about "percentage of the population with xyz trait" essentially smooth out cofounding factors to such an extreme degree as to be useless. Sub-populations of attributes are neither independent nor evenly distributed. For example 0.8% of the 18+ population in the US identifies as trans. Many people on here talk about having never met a trans person irl. I have met probably 6-7 in 100 people because I live in a prog-ish area and have hobbies that are more nerdy. I have an 8.75 times higher than the base stat. Broad trends are of course broad trends, but when folks date, they aren't dating broad trends. If that makes sense.
I think this is really true for everything. It's possible, but rare that you are going to get everything you ever want in life in all the perfect amounts. You need to order your priorities and then make sacrifices to get there. Personal example, I really wanted to do AGI research as a younger lad, + top-tier pay (At the time AGI research was not high paying), not have to grind the rat race, work life balance, to live in a city with a good gender ratio, a nerdy wife, to own a house, several more extremist political goals etc. In my 20s I realized I had to choose, I couldn't get all of those, several were contradictory with each other on first order basis, others were contradictory on 2nd and 3rd order basses. Others competed for the same free-time. I think you always have to choose, make compromises and find the minimally viable configuration that makes yourself happy. One needs to be pragmatic about it all. However whenever I hear people complain about this, they explicitly don't want to have to choose. Idk if its because our culture raised a generation so rich in material wealth that it coddled them, made them believe in a fantasy, or is this just a lesson that never got passed down.
I know enough single women to say that this is a fairly biased stance. Young, single, women suffer mirrored difficulties to young, single, men. Much like young men, they want it all, in unrealistic proportions, with contradictory factors. They deal with a different side of the matching problem, a ton of signal but also a ton of noise and a lack of social and cultural infrastructure to filter a signal from that noise. Part of this feels like an urban/rural divide as well. I hopefully have already conveyed that urban areas seem to attract far more "optimizers" for a lack of a better word.
Young average Joes need to digest and learn that trying to standout in a generalist stance is probably a fools errand. Find a niche, a community, a hobby, a sub-culture, etc. and stand out in that. Hypergamy is a thing but its also not the only factor. Assortative mating is the name of the game. Hypergamy can occur in that localized niche, and in-person interactions are far more real than online ones to anyone but the most brainrotted of doomscrollers (do you really want to date them??)
They are good indicators of what is happening broadly. Individually, no, they cannot predict what will happen between your conservative friend and his next date. If we look at 10,000 conservative males, or even males of all political affiliations, and we collect data on their relationship statuses over the course of a decade, and we apply variables like where they live, we can get a pretty good idea of what generally happens relationship-wise within that group.
Yes, but what you must sacrifice now compared to what people had to sacrifice in the past has changed. It's not that young males are materially worse off than their fathers or grandfathers. It's that young males are materially worse off in comparison to their female peers today. That makes it more difficult for guys to appeal to girls in their group.
Your comments keep coming from anecdotal experience, and you're using those anecdotes to argue against what I am claiming is happening at scale. You're right that women face their own set of issues, and I'd agree that they're unhappy in a lot of ways. I don't imagine it is particularly satisfying to swipe left 500 times just to find one guy to swipe right on that's attractive enough to match with, only to get annoyed at his second reply and start all over again. It seems deeply unsatisfying. This is how we've set things up for them though, and we've done it at the expense of their male peers. It's not their fault. Society has placed a major emphasis on their freedoms and rights, and they're just responding to what has been made available to them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link