site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

then a random man would have to be top 10% in terms of looks for the expected utility for women of having sex with him to turn positive.

Yet as far as I am aware, the first the woman sees on tinder is looks, and ones ranking on them is considered to be important by those that advise men as to how to increase their match rate. Would apperance play second fiddle to character in what women value, suggestions to hire a professional writer to write ones bio would be more common than suggestions to hire a pro-photographer.

and also all women are at least slightly chubby.

What is the negative trait men on tinder posses, which is mirror of this?

Yet as far as I am aware, the first the woman sees on tinder is looks, and ones ranking on them is considered to be important by those that advise men as to how to increase their match rate. Would apperance play second fiddle to character in what women value, suggestions to hire a professional writer to write ones bio would be more common than suggestions to hire a pro-photographer.

Do people actually read/write bios on Tinder, and does however much space it offers for them convey enough of a signal about the traits women actually care about? (To begin with, if we're talking about Tinder, surely it already represents a biased sample of women, namely those who like the idea of swiping on hunks for a fling)

What is the negative trait men on tinder posses, which is mirror of this?

There doesn't have to be one. I don't dispute that there is some inbalance in terms of how much men like the average woman vs. how much women like the average man. However, the chart does not need reflect the scale of that imbalance, any more than the proposed "income to like" chart would reflect the scale of men's dislike for the negative trait in question. At the extreme, we could pick a completely irrelevant trait ("degree of preference for cracking breakfast eggs on the dull side"), and get a chart which would be uniformly one or the other colour given the slightest imbalance.