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 -
I mentioned here many times that I consider the gender (sex) divide the greatest factor in our model of understanding modern political thought and action.
Background; middle-class male, young, Catholic family, Mediterranean, living in a big, poor city. Moved to Central Europe to work in a big èlite public institution with many young people, especially females. History of belonging to Marxist organisations in the past btw.
As a passionate about history, I normally talk about it, especially in a highly-educated environment where discussions about complex topics are the norm.
What I noticed in the past year it is astounding and moulded a lot of my thought. Every time I talk with women about history, and the topics fall on some past event/political regime/ideology/whatever, there is a lot of disinterest towards it from the women's side. Not disinterest in the sense of "I do not care", because as I said it is a highly-educated environment where being uncaring about this kind of thing is uncool, but disinterest in the sense of:
"I understand that in the past things worked a certain way, but the past is always worse than now because women had it worse".
From there, after it happened dozens of times with dozens of different women, I elaborated:
Women are the true accelerationist.
I could not elaborate or argue about past political or moral issues or ideologies or sovrastructures, because, from the other side, the argument is always that every behaviour or ideology of the past is ontologically evil because it discriminated against women.
I will never forget how when I was arguing about how 19th-century European states had probably a higher state-capacity than contemporary European states, I was accused of sexism because I expressed a preference for a non-contemporary political structure. The same happened when I mentioned how I admire Charles De Gaulle (because Macron, while being bad, is better than him because he is more feminist).
The most amazing moment was when I said to a group of women (yes, a lot of weird moments this year) that the loss of Church participation alienated a lot of people and diminished the sense of belonging and social participation of the community in the public thing. They agreed with me (!) but still for them, it is better now because they prefer a more isolated society but with more feminism.
Women are true accelerationist because the consequence of feminism has been a weirdo para-futurism philosophy but without fascism. Everything that can be conducted to the past is suspected as part of a reactionary plot to be judged on moral grounds. No detached interests in History per se, but only moral condemnation of everything that is not the "current year".
For me, it was fascinating to discover how males and females consider history, especially when the topic of "in which historical epoch would you like to live?" and every woman answer "now".
The biggest consequence of this sex divide is, imho, that a feminist liberal society has a huge gap in understanding the context when society begins to decline after drifting from some past ideology or structure. It is not possible for them that something contemporary can be worse than something present in the past.
I would like to receive some input on my "theory" from the residents of the motte, expressed in the English language which is better than mine.
PS: for people who are curious, I never received any sort of cancellation or consequence for my brazen rhetorical behaviour. Europe is not as woke as the US, and I am a kinda of "high-status male" for several reason, so I noticed that women tolerate way more whatever I say.
Isn't the evosych bit backwards? Evolution mostly occurred for humans in small-scale societies (some did in larger societies recently, but less, and I don't think there's are any significant differences in noncultural sexual dimorphism between populations with more or less agriculture historically). In a small society, conflict might mean (exaggerated) half the men die, while their wives are just taken by the winning men and continue to reproduce (maybe their kids die, maybe they don't). Part of my guess - Men (also a very questionable justso story) would rather have a more spread out distribution - have a chance at being 'the best' or 'the worst' - rather than conforming and having a higher chance at being mid-distribution, because the best men might be able to reproduce a lot, while both middling and bottom men reproduce close to zero. Female reproduction is capped, so they're more influenced by the natural risk-aversion of it being easier to imitate the current cultural set of good ideas than try to come up with your own, most of which will be bad.
No because the scale or agricultural bias of the society is largely irrelevant to the biological fact that adult males are a disposable resource.
A society or tribe can afford to lose 90 percent of its male population in a manner that it can't afford to lose 90 percent of it's women and children. The former can (and likely will) bounce back to its original population numbers in the space of a generation or two, the latter is likely doomed.
If you believe in a strong theory of group selection, but the Fisher's principle proves that an approximately 50-50 male female ratios will prevail. Something, empirically provable, even in humans. Empirically males aren't disposable biologically. I'm not sure why you think the Lord your God thinks males should be disposable; either, as an ex-Catholic.
I think you need to explain what you think you mean by "empirically" in this instance because I'm not making a "should" statement im making an "is" statements and the existance of selection pressures that favor parity between the sexes over time does not change the fact that adult males are essentially disposable.
Sure, but in Western society, both Western Christianity and even before in pagan Greece and Rome monogamy was strictly enforced and this makes men not so disposable. Especially in a plow based farming economy that relies on male labor and in many cases restricted females from working many jobs. Males are not disposable, they are essential. I discussed this with you before about how infanticide is almost always biased towards killing female infants and male children are almost always favored in most societies including present ones.
No it doesn't, because a widow can remarry. The reason we used men for hard, physical, and often dangerous labor is that we can afford to lose them.
Likewise, the historical reason that male children have been preferred is that until very recently only male children could inherit, and this bias was very much tied to their disposable nature. What does a man do? A man provides.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link