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 -
Modern society has more defense mechanisms and is refining the ones it has for precisely this reason.
Plentiful cheap entertainment and pleasure to blunt male aggression via degeneracy.
An ever increasing system of controls and surveillance to chase for "radicalization" in any online or media space. This system can be vastly more granular than most surveillance systems in the past; corporate moderators, researchers and actual government agents can track smaller and smaller accounts and users now than someone might have been able to follow a random who only had a telephone or not even that.
Related to 2: this also allows the crushing of any figure for males to rally around, from the milquetoast types like Jordan Peterson to the imo probably legitimately misogynistic and criminal like Andrew Tate.
Attempts to control the academy and so to educate such men into the right mindset to blunt violence (some form of self-hating, self-blaming false consciousness).
A real gauntlet for radicalized men to run. I doubt their frustration amount to much.
Speaking personally, I'm not that worried about Andrew Tate. Partly because a lot of what Tate says was far more mainstream only a few decades ago, just in a slightly different language, and second of all, Tate's audience isn't 20-something incels. It's horny 14 & 15 years olds. Now, as a former horny 14-year-old boy, of course, they're frustrated.
But, the reality is, most of these 14-year-old boys will have some sort of relationship in high school. Guess what, once the option is a makeout session/handjob/etc. or continuing to watch Tate or some other dumb streamer, guess what the horny teenage boy is going to choose? Like, it's obviously not great, but I don't think it's the crisis people think it is.
Why do you think this? Only 35% of teens have been in a relationship and I'd assume these people are less likely to be Tate fans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The system of anti-radicalization controls is really bad relative to what it could be. Far-right twitter users get suspended every few months, but continue to 'radicalize' people. It's certainly less effective than past forms of social control like 'exile/prison for saying something illegal', and dissent existed in those too. The first point has at least 20x the effect of the second.
More options
Context Copy link
The most likely outcome won't be any kind of incel revolution, but a constant drag on the economy as more and more young men permanently check out in favor of a minimal amount of wage labor to survive and spend on cheap electronic entertainment. It won't destroy the country, but it'll make it worse off, both for the limited lives those men will lead and for the missing value to society (economic and interpersonal) they won't create.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link