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 -
You misunderstand. That women are advantaged so is proof they are systematically disadvantaged because they won't be able to find partners that make as much as them. Look up "golden penis syndrome" (no I'm not making this up).
Ideas do not die when they are proven wrong but when their spirit is broken. So long as it is convenient to believe the ills that befall men are caused by the metaphysical conspiracy of Patriarchy, the only cure for the lapse in morale will be subsequent beatings.
We most likely have decades or centuries more of this kind of thinking to suffer in the West until the pendulum swings back so you better get used to it.
"Men increasingly alienated from an education credentialist complex that hates them; women and their hypergamous impulses hardest hit."
Also related is polygyny, with Merited Impossibility to boot. Ugh, young women definitely don't prefer being a side-chick to a Chad than the main-chick of a Brad, but if they do it's only because male shittiness creates female-dominated environments, so young women are the true victims here in having no choice but to be polygynous.
Polygnyous hypergamy takes some bizarre forms in academia, e.g. I knew of a famous academic who looks like Buddy Holly, with an astounding lack of either normal social graces or the ability to (successfully) imitate WASP norms, but who had two model-level grad students he was screwing (with their knowledge, but with their hope that "he'll choose me eventually") one of whom was semi-openly cucking her Gigachad-looking husband. And they were just the women I knew about.
Oh, and that's with a skin condition that means he can't use deoderant/cologne, plus (according to one of those beautiful women) a notably small penis.
Sort of encouraging, if you're academically successful and don't look like Gigachad.
And shit like this is why the HBD/IQ fetishists are wrong and the entire institution of academia needs to be nuked from orbit. (it's the only way to be sure)
Don't envy him: according to the Daily Mail, a Golden Penis Syndrome report says that he might feel "unduly in demand":
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10152727/How-golden-penis-syndrome-ruining-modern-dating.html
But, speaking as an academic... I can't disagree with what you say.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t understand what this has to do with the post you replied to.
The professor and both the grad students are presumably high IQ, but their high IQ does not protect them from wretched choices. The standard "HBD/IQ fetishist" argument is that high-IQ people are just straight-up better in every way that matters. This is an example of how that is not true, how intelligence does not equate to wisdom or good character.
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
So it's the inverted version of the cock carousel, except showing up on medium, Daily Mail and New York Post as opposed to /pol/ or /r9k/.
The naivete of some of these writers is fantastic:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link