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 a preemptive defense mechanism: the usual way of responding to someone concerned about the topic is to call them an incel, but if they're an uberchad, not only do they avoid that attack but also are taken more seriously, as they've been validated by real life women's attention.
People aren't neatly divided into incels and normies; it's more of a continuum, and most straight men have had to navigate the dating scene. None of the troubles that afflict incels are unique to them: they just take different forms once you actually get laid and interact with women. That, along with extended dry periods, is enough to give men some empathy for the situation.
I've gotten more black pilled after getting laid.
There are certain stereotypes about women that I used to classify as bitter incel talking points. I eventually found out there was some truth to it and more.
The most fundamental one being that I actually dont believe women give much heed to physical material reality at all. The social reality, or the dimention space of words and ideas and feeling and vibes are what women navigate in as a default. Its hard to describe this but
the women I saw just had a spotty relationship with what I consider the truth. Dont get me wrong, they pay heed to physical reality but its just a token. There were so many discussions where the framework of the past was change on "because I feel that". And that "feel" wasnt intuition, it was emotion. I have noticed that the "repeat a lie enough times.." technique is used a whole lot, and it makes perfect sense if reality is just a bunch of word vectors.
None of this made thise women bad people. But it did inform me that hundreds of civilizations for thousands of years keeping them out of thr adults room were perhaps onto something. I dont propse this gets done but the mind does wander.
I think @DaseindustriesLtd wrote about something to a similar effect in the old country, I cant find it.
What you are alluding to can be better explained by "not understanding something since their job depends on not understanding it".
For example, opinions that toe the line on gender issues, even if poorly supported receive no push back when expressed by women. Hence, they have no incentive to think about them critically when the conclusion may not benefit them in the short term.
Plenty of people including men have shown this tendency on other issues when their privilege hinges on not addressing it.
I'm not precisely alluding to this. I am talking about situations that are far less obviously tribal.
For example, if a person starts being disliked, not only is that person disliked from that current point in time but the past is retroactively changed such that that person is terrible from the beginning. This behavior repeated enough times compounds into a total fantasy world. And keep in mind, these are not done with Bayesian logic, they are done based on feelings and vibes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link