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 -
MIRI Researcher Don’t be a Quokka Challenge (IMPOSSIBLE).
Katja Grace posts “date me” document. Asks everyone to share.
I originally posted a similar link in the small-scale-questions thread in response to Tyler Cowen linking to the doc on MarginalRevolution. What I didn’t know at the time is that Katja apparently wants this to be spread everywhere?!?!?
Object-level thoughts: I quite liked it. The document makes a compelling case that will appeal strongly to a certain demographic of men. It’s pretty much exactly what you would expect from “mid-30s Bay Area rationalist woman ready to settle down and have kids,” expanded out into a full dating profile. It certainly caught my attention.
Meta-level thoughts: OH NO WHAT ARE YOU DOING? You can send out something like this to your blog readers. They’ll know how to interpret it, and they’re the kind of people you’d be interested in anyways. You can’t toss it out into the black void that is Twitter and expect to come out unscathed. She even dropped her personal email address at the end. Guess who’s going to need a new Gmail account next week?
Protip: If you are a woman, do not ever put something like this in your dating profile. This will be used as an excuse for some weirdo on the edge of sanity to stalk you.
I feel bad for her getting dragged in the quote tweets, but like, what did she expect? Why, in response to getting a negative reaction, is she intent on spreading it even further? That’s the opposite of what she should be doing. Everyone who would be compatible with her has already seen it.
The simple answer for women who makes such lists is : "If you cared that much, you would've found someone 10 years ago."
Truth is, her interests are so niche, that she could do a stake out in a couple of known locations and easily find the man she is looking for. Bay Area ACX meetups & AI conferences are chock full of these kinds of men. Most importantly, these kinds of men will be found almost no where else. So why make a twitter post about it ? It's like planting cameras around the world for kangaroos to expand your likelihood of getting a hit, when you're already in Australia. Hers is such a sub-optimal strategy, that any "man with good judgement" is immediately going to run in the opposite direction. It might work, but not because it's well advised. It's the Bay Area ! A woman could fart in a general direction, and there would be a line of men waiting to smell her fragrance.
Women also fail to understand what 'poly' means. A man needs to do a ton of work to successfully convince a bunch of women to have a non-committed sexual relationship with him. Winner take all situations with men, mean that a man who can regularly have sex with >2 women (esp. in the bay area) can just as easily have sex with >10 women too. On the other hand, a man who juts barely landed a committed partner, has no chance of finding casual partners. Additionally, there isn't much of a middle ground. So there are only 3 kinds of happy bay-area men in poly relationships. Cucks, Chads who fuck everything that moves, and swingers where each partner helps bring prospective mates for their primary partner. (ie. she has to help find sexual partners for him). Chads have much higher standards, which mean that unless she is the kind to help find mates for her poly partner, she will be stuck with a cuck.
She wrote a whole lot, without saying anything.
Yeah duh. Name one person who doesn't want that in a half-decent partner............
If she is that forward, then the one question she should answer is : "Why have you been unsuccessful in finding someone for so long?"
Every single one of my non-ugly, smart, tech-nerdy female friends found an excellent long term tech guy partner who would meet all the requirements that Katja mentions. All within a few months of graduating from grad school. These women are every bit as direct, quirky and nerdy as Rats. But, they are smart enough to go through their networks, and quickly found a fully-vetted single guy within their Bay Area community.
Do you live in opposite world? The "vetting" meme is real: already having a gf is the best pussy magnet (outside of having several millions of dollars).
[Edit: for speak-plainly purposes, the vetting meme is the idea that women are more attracted to men who already have committed partners because the presence of the committed partner demonstrates ex facie that he is capable of satisfying a woman (in all social, financial, and sexual spheres). It is both a costly signal, and proof that he is indeed boyfriend material.]
The poster was specifically talking about men who can just barely land a committed partner.
Makes no difference. Women's intuition isn't so great that they can see the thread his relationship's hanging by. What they can see is the fact that he's got a relationship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link