site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34512 thread views

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
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The vast majority of women want a boyfriend who values them as more than a sex partner. They do not want a friend with benefits, and they are often crestfallen to settle for one after a series of dates and hookups. The cratering self-esteem and mental health of young women in progressive spaces should clue us in that this whole arrangement isn’t great for them either.

Then they shouldn't have set the bar on making approaches so high that only Chad can pass it, and set the penalties so high for failure that only someone who thinks he's Chad, or is utterly clueless, dares try in an environment other than among strangers (e.g. online dating).

Or, more realistically, they should make a man commit to them before he can get his dick wet.

What does commitment even mean these days? Marriage? Getting a fiance ring or something?

Anything that entails the contribution of one's time, effort and patience, plus a willingness to compromise.

I imagine back in the olden days it was socially difficult if you suddenly broke up with your relationship, there'd be all these rumors and voices and your family would be very angry with you. When King Edward VIII wanted to marry an American divorcee it was just not on. He was made to pay a price for that decision.

But what is there now that can prove your commitment? What can be socially enforced? What is commitment in the relationship sense? Nothing.

Well, yes. I suppose I understand what you're getting at.

Times have indeed changed. There was a time when men were responsible for their wives / female relatives, and women were accountable to their husbands/ male relatives. Those times are gone. Dismantling patriarchal monogamy has consequences. I'll argue that proving your commitment is still easy, as it has signals that should be bloody obvious to the other party, but generally speaking, commitment can only be elicited and incentivized, not enforced. That's the social reality today.

That would be part of the problem- see my earlier comment about there are no standards anymore.

In reality, I suspect the immediate result of lowering the bar is to keep getting pumped and dumped, just by less attractive guys, even if this does increase her long-term odds of finding a good relationship,

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats