site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35580 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

13
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The apparent reasons for the old exception have fallen away: the link between sex and pregnancy, the uncertainty of paternity.

The "uncertainty of paternity" exception remains in effect because it's socially taboo to ask for genetic verification of paternity. And even so, the husband may still be liable for alimony after a divorce caused by infidelity.

It remains important to be convinced in the reliability of your partner before marriage. Low body count is an honest signal for that worry. (Although, like other honest signals, it's unreliable and can be faked.)

Those are good points, but the logic is mostly post-hoc for many men like me. This is about the most primal and fundamental instinct evolution has drilled into our brains. Even with 100% paternity certainty, non-virgin women disgust me.

This is about the most primal and fundamental instinct evolution has drilled into our brains. Even with 100% paternity certainty, non-virgin women disgust me.

That disgust doesn't seem likely to be from evolution though. The posited male evolutionary strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible, in a scattergun approach. Tribes conquered other tribes and integrated their women virgin or not. To put it bluntly, your genes do not "care" as long as the woman is fertile.

Your disgust then seems likely to be culturally instilled not from some in built instinctual urge which in fact the evidence suggests runs the other way. That men are sexually attracted to young, fertile women no matter their status or promiscuity.

Oh I would def bang non-virgin women, but marrying one when I could have a virgin is what makes me so uncomfortable. Men in the west assume they wouldn't be like this and it's not part of their culture anymore, but I've met some muslim converts and when they realize it's an option they quickly change their minds lol.

Also you're only partly right about the tribes conquering, some of the women who weren't virgins were sometimes killed. Sometimes all women were killed. It really depends on the circumstances. I'd love to steal a loyal woman from another man as part of my harem, but that's not the same to me as being with a woman who had promiscuous sex before me.

I agree the gene-environment interactions are very complex, but that hardly means my jealousy instinct is just culturally instilled, any more than the fact that we can pressure people into killing themselves means they don't want to survive.

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