site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   38168 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

People are deeply hostile to the reality, no matter who you are, that fulfilment and happiness and ‘living a worthwhile life’ essentially come down to a very simple recipe.

Marry young(ish) to someone of good temperament, have a reasonable number of children (three or more), work a job you can somewhat stand, have some kind of spiritual life. Above all, tend to a dense circle of friends and family who you trust and who trust you, who live nearby and who you see often. Save a little money if you can. Try to do good by those who care about you.

This advice is proven over countless generations. It applies to almost all people, everywhere in the world. It is attainable for everyone in the global middle class and above, which is everyone here and certainly everyone writing political commentary on the internet.

But it’s also kind of scary, because if it’s that easy to be happy and fulfilled despite living in a decadent, empty, atomized, soulless, blah blah blah modern hellscape (etc etc), then why aren’t you doing it? Masturbation about joining Wagner or the Foreign Legion or fighting a war against China or leading The Revolution is much more interesting, because the very fact that these things are unlikely to happen means that they confer no obligation or even pressure to improve.

The fact that the recipe for happiness is so easy is precisely what makes it so terrifying, because it means failure to achieve it is usually our own fault.

But it’s also kind of scary, because if it’s that easy to be happy and fulfilled despite living in a decadent, empty, atomized, soulless, blah blah blah modern hellscape (etc etc), then why aren’t you doing it?

The marriage and children part sounds boring to me. The only motivation I have to do it is to increase my odds of having people around me in my old age, but from an ethical perspective to me that seems like not a very good reason to get married and have kids. Maybe I should just look at it more pragmatically. Probably most of my grandparents' generation would have viewed it as a totally valid reason to get married and have kids even if they did not want to do that for any other reason. But even if that's true, still, it does not change the fact that getting married and having kids sounds boring to me.

The marriage and children part sounds boring to me.

Well, to slightly modify something Tolstoy wrote: "All happy people are alike; each unhappy person is unhappy in their own way." Pretty much every way to lead a more interesting or exciting life than the traditional family script is less likely on average to be as emotionally fulfilling for any given person.

What does the third kid add?

Having three kids instead of two seems better for sibling dynamics in general (e.g. it's harder for the oldest to always bully the youngest if there's a third who can intervene) and they will be better to able to entertain themselves when their parents aren't around.

Marry...

I've done this more or less. Reasonably happy. No desire to join the Wagner Group. Wife is homeschooling next year, Latin is in the curriculum.

Marry young(ish) to someone of good temperament, have a reasonable number of children (three or more), work a job you can somewhat stand, have some kind of spiritual life. Above all, tend to a dense circle of friends and family who you trust and who trust you, who live nearby and who you see often. Save a little money if you can. Try to do good by those who care about you.

Do you apply this to women as well?

EDIT: based on 2rafa's past comments about gender differences and the Red Pill that I've read here and on the old subreddit, I'm not convinced that she actually thinks that marrying young and having 3-4 children* is the recipe for fulfilment and happiness for young single women. On the other hand, I can totally see why she'd give that advice to this online community here, which is mostly composed of men. In other words, I can understand why she'd argue that this is sound advice for single men who want to fulfill their male sexual imperative in a way that benefits them long-term.

*Just to point out one thing: having three or more healthy children as a woman implies in the context of current society that you enter a long-term relationship with your future husband at 18-20 years of age and have your first child 2-4 years later, when you're convinced that the relationship is stable enough. Who would actually even give teenage girls such advice openly these days?

I would assume 2rafa is connected enough to reality to be aware that cloning vats are not a thing that exist yet.

True, but that's not my point. See the edit.

The window on having 3+ children doesn’t actually close until 30ish. You can have a 3.5-4 tfr with the average woman marrying at, say, 25.

Fertility decline is real, but it doesn’t happen that fast.

I don't think that the average woman can deliver 3 or more healthy children in a span of 5-8 years and retain good health. Statistically it's not likely. But even if it is, this is the equivalent of advising women to marry after finishing college. I think that's rather countercultural today.

That’s countercultural in elite circles, sure, but ‘get married 23-25 and have 3 ish kids’ is more or less the mainstream red tribe ideal.

Of course, although I suppose there’s some leeway around the ‘work’ part, just like there’s nuance everywhere.,

Pretty sure 2rafa is a woman, so I would guess “yes.”

That's not something I see as evident. See the edit.

Fair enough.

Though…I guess even that sounds reasonable to me? Not the advice I’d give, but for someone of more traditional values, it doesn’t seem outside the Overton window.

I would say absolutely, minus having the job bit, if a woman can bag a husband who earns enough to pay for both of them.

Isn't it women birthing and then caring for the three or more children?

Yes, but that's not my point. See the edit.

My mother had three children after thirty (none via ivf). I don’t think people need to be married at 20 for it to happen.

On average, 90% of a woman's eggs perish by the age of 30. As far as I know, this is a biological fact. It'd be dishonest to advise young women to "marry young(ish) to someone of good temperament, have a reasonable number of children (three or more)" and then imply that they can wait until age 30 to start having children. In most cases, this won't bring the desired result i.e. three or more healthy children.

Yes, but I think that was @2rafa point a bit with;

People are deeply hostile to the reality

Find a partner, settle down, marry is the advice that teenagers should be getting from secular society.

It can be done by an older woman, we have four children 2 years apart. My wife was 41 for the last. She was 26 when we married.

I think 22 - 24 and pregnant, even 16 and pregnant is better than 40 and no children.

if it’s that easy to be happy and fulfilled despite living in a decadent, empty, atomized, soulless, blah blah blah modern hellscape (etc etc), then why aren’t you doing it?

Quite a few thinkers have engaged this question. It was a central motivating concern for Lacan, for example:

"To be a psychoanalyst is simply to open your eyes to the evident fact that nothing malfunctions more than human reality. If you believe that you have a well-adapted, reasonable ego, which knows its way around, how to recognize what is to be done and not to be done, and how to take reality into account, then there is nothing left to do but send you packing. Psychoanalysis, and this it shares with common experience, shows you that nothing is more stupid than human destiny, that is, that one is always being fooled. Even when one does do something successfully, it is precisely not what one wanted to do. There is nothing more disappointed than a gentleman who is supposed to have attained the pinnacle of his wishes. One only need speak with him for three minutes, frankly, as perhaps only the artifice of the psychoanalytic couch permits, to know that in the end all that stuff is just the sort of thing he could not care less about and, furthermore, that he is particularly troubled by all sorts of things. Analysis is about becoming aware of this and taking it into account."

To cut a long story short, people are as inherently self-destructive as they are self-interested, if not more so.

Marry young(ish) to someone of good temperament, have a reasonable number of children (three or more), work a job you can somewhat stand, have some kind of spiritual life. Above all, tend to a dense circle of friends and family who you trust and who trust you, who live nearby and who you see often. Save a little money if you can. Try to do good by those who care about you.

Well, if it's that easy, why are there unhappy married people? How do you explain divorce? People fall in love, they have kids, they fall out of love, they separate, everyone winds up bitter. Or they stay bitter together, either way. Not every marriage ends in unhappiness of course, but it happens often enough to undercut your thesis that it's "just that easy".

It sounds like the guy quoted in the OP already is following your advice, but he still has doubts:

I have a perfect wife that loves me and who I love, and I still want to go and die in some war.

It’s no guarantee of happiness; nothing is. But it’s as close as it gets.

So it's not actually a simple recipe, because a recipe is something that should give you expected result as long as you follow the steps, and the steps themselves should be simple, mechanical, and not contain any unexplained complexity.

Well, if it's that easy, why are there unhappy married people? How do you explain divorce? People fall in love, they have kids, they fall out of love, they separate, everyone winds up bitter.

The qualifier "someone of good temperament" very obviously does the heavy lifting in the original comment. People of good temperament don't become bitter and their marriages don't fail. Or something.

Marry young(ish) to someone of good temperament, have a reasonable number of children (three or more), work a job you can somewhat stand, have some kind of spiritual life. Above all, tend to a dense circle of friends and family who you trust and who trust you, who live nearby and who you see often. Save a little money if you can. Try to do good by those who care about you.

LOL. All of this is rather easier said than done. And it reminds me of Jorah's claim from Game of Thrones "The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends"... nothing wrong with that, but advising that path seems out of place coming from such an unrepentant elitist.

It's pretty easy if you're not a maladjusted fuck posting on TheMotte like the rest of us, yeah.

Despite adding "like the rest of us" this reads more like an attack than a light-hearted attempt at camaraderie, and your record gives you less benefit of the doubt.

Banned for two days. You don't seem to contribute much besides sneering and antagonism.

If you're actually not young any more, you can't obviously marry young, and having three or more children might cause problems as well.

You can come as close as you can to it (if you’re thirty five, maybe it’s just marriage and one kid; if you’re fifty, maybe it’s just marriage and community) and achieve some measure of, and in many cases a great deal of, happiness.

True, and odds are blaming yourself is more true than blaming everyone else.

That may be, but it also won't wind the clock back.

I and my wife met and married in our mid-30s, and are lucky that we could have two children. However, it wasn't exactly possible to marry each other earlier on account of not having even met each other. None of my earlier relationships were of the sort where having children would have even been an option.

I'm... reasonably sure that the majority of people posting on the Motte are married. Or did the poll we had way back when not cover that?

Sure many basic human needs can be satisfied using the path you outlined, at least this might make you too busy for existential frustration, but one might ask - is that what's life really about? Would it be insolent and foolish to ask "is there more?" Is that a solution, or a way of preventing yearning for a solution from driving you mad?

A problem of over-engineering or over-evolving of the human brain.

When you build a car that needs to go at most 80mph on the highway, you don't make it only capable of going 80mph. Instead you build it to go 160mph, but going that speed creates lots of wear and tear at a much faster rate.

Human brains are capable of handling extreme stress and difficult problem solving situations. Sometimes it is necessary for survival. But our comfortable cruising speed is much slower. The 'have a family, have friends, have an easy job' is like going 45mph. Most people can easily sustain making one of those things more stressful. They can have a larger family, take on a harder job, or be the organizer that creates social events for other people to maintain friendships, that might take them up to 60-80mph. Things like being in a war, fighting for survival, etc are taking you up to 120mph and beyond. Its not a healthy cruising speed, but some adrenaline junkies do get addicted to driving that fast. I've known one or two brilliant minds that burned out going those speeds for too long.

You say this and yet a lot of the spite is generated precisely by the inability to realize this vision.

You brush away in a single sentence all the legitimate reasons why living a good life in in fact nigh on impossible for most people today.

I would bet a small fortune that if the author could get what you describe with reasonable effort, he wouldn't be where he is.

But of course since virility axiomatically requires an internal locus of control in all things, it's his fault that he fails even as his entire society is stacked against the very idea of this simple happiness. Sucks to suck, git gud.

Where you err in my view is in what to do about this. The rational answer here isn't to try harder to live the good life in the face of insurmontable obstacles like a dupe. It is in fact to destroy society or escape it.

Systems that refuse to do what is necessary to sustain themselves deserve to die.

And this is true at all scales.

inability to realize this vision

You’re not going to realize this vision if you’re doing ketamine and cocaine and having “polyamorous” “relationships” in your 20s

Look at the Mormons for the most extreme example. No, actually this is attainable. You just have to actually follow the rules.

Not everyone has the luxury of tradition, religion, family or even any sort of belonging. Mormons are immensely privileged and the least central of examples.

Try to get a traditional relationship as the average Western 20 something now, see what happens. Fucking try.

There literally aren't places for you to even look for those things anymore. And most of the people who advertise themselves as available are degenerate in the ways you describe or other worse ones. This is true of both sexes. And, unfortunately, of large portions of those that are still nominally religious.

I've followed the rules my whole life, I've met dozens of people who did. The rules don't lead anywhere anymore for most people except lone misery. Because the institutions that backed them are not there anymore.

Everyone is desperately trying to replicate the radio call that brings about the cargo plane with the home, the car, the wife and the kids. The intricacies of which buttons to press in what order, and the significance of every gesture are subject to great debate. But it's not working. Nobody's listening on the other side.

Not everyone has the luxury of tradition, religion... Try to get a traditional relationship as the average Western 20 something now, see what happens. Fucking try. There literally aren't places for you to even look for those things anymore.

It's not a luxury, it's a choice and a difficult to substitute ingredient. If you want a traditional relationship & family, get religion. If you don't want religion, accept that you might not get the relationship.

Jeffrey Atomic asks Danny Familyman what he's eating, because damn it smells delicious. "It's called pizza. It is delicious, and pretty simple. Highly recommend!"

Jeffrey: "Maybe for you, but I don't have the luxury of a pizza dough. Try eating hot cheese and liquid sauce out of your hands. Fucking Try."

Danny Familyman: Yeah that sounds terrible. Why don't you get a pizza dough? People are offering them literally all around you. Here have one of mine!

Mr. Atomic: "I don't want dough!"

Danny Familyman: Ok, then you don't want pizza. Delicious sauce, cheese, and toppings are all founded on the crust.

JA: I want the deliciousness of pizza! But I don't have the luxury of wanting the dough.

Danny Familyman: OK. But you will have to find that deliciousness some other, much harder way. And the dough is right here available for you. If you don't want the dough, you don't really want pizza, and your desire for pizza without it being pizza isn't a real or coherent wish. This isn't a luxury, or a cheat code it's the foundation.

It's not a luxury, it's a choice and a difficult to substitute ingredient. If you want a traditional relationship & family, get religion. If you don't want religion, accept that you might not get the relationship.

This needs to be bolded. There absolutely are well functioning matchmaking systems to this day, even systems with a shortage of eligible men. The only issue is that you need to be willing to adhere to a bunch of other rules. The rules aren't even that hard, collectively billions of people around the world adhere to some set of them that gives them access to their local version of the system. If they can do it, so can you.

what stops someone from joining the mormon church? If you dont have tradition you can buy into some, after all converting new people is a big part of the Mormon tradition with the missions that guys go on.

I have a friend who actually did this. Met him at a tech job about 15 years ago in the bay area, and he appeared to be a clean-cut nerdy Mormon. Got to chatting with coworkers and found that just a year earlier he had been a normal tech dork (working for Falcon video no less, a well known gay porn company) and had converted recently.

I got to talking to him after working there a while and in a moment of...something, he confessed to me that he didn't really believe the Mormon doctrines, but had converted in hopes of getting a wife and family.

The thing is : it worked. He actually did get married, have kids, and move to Idaho to be a Mormon. From what I understand he is still living this way to this day.

I think it's fantastic that someone did that. And, yes, I think it would probably work!

But the fact that we're talking about this one example as some sort of strange and rare specimen shows you that the advice is not very practical. If it were so easy, surely more people would be doing it.

Even though it's possible for people to overcome their upbringing, we'd surely benefit if society was structured in a way that is more conducive to forming stable marriages.

what stops someone from joining the mormon church?

That what they preach is untrue.

There are dozens other similarly conservative groups, many of which have better apologetics and less outlandish beliefs.

Yet it doesn’t stop people from joining and working for the companies which espouse views they consider false. When I worked at FAANG, I knew plenty of people who were quite based in private, and ridiculed the letter religion. Obviously they considered it false, but nevertheless they stuck with their job and didn’t rock the boat. Sure, you can say they were in there just for the money, but so what? You can join the Mormons just for the wife, that’s not any different. This is exactly what I would have done myself if I needed.

Yet it doesn’t stop people from joining and working for the companies which espouse views they consider false.

It is not a condition of employment at any firm I've been a member of to even pretend to believe in any of their nonsense. Even with aggressive DEI departments I have not once been asked to affirm a progressive view. For me to join a church would be to lie, and to lie about something important to people who believe it is important. It's not the kind of thing I recommend anyone making a habit of.

More comments

Are we to believe that sincere belief in God (let alone LDS mythology) is something that one can just improvise out of convenience? Are we furthermore to believe that the boons shall even come without sincerity?

Buying into a tradition is not impossible. But it is by no means easy or practical for most people, otherwise the zoomer tradcaths would have manifested their cargo planes by now.

I still wonder to this day how right and how wrong DeGobineau was when he said that civilization is incommunicable.

The internet larper tradcaths don’t actually go to church, is why their cargo cult doesn’t work. Irl tradcath communities have their fair share of problems, but the growth rate being low is not one of them.

You can certainly try to believe.

By which I mean, behave as if God's existence is more probable than you currently think it is. Try praying, in earnest (or as earnestly as you can when you think it is very unlikely anyone is listening). Try reading scripture with an openness to the possibility that there is something valuable and true there to learn. Try going to a church: don't pretend you already believe, but be open to the possibility that your mind could be changed.

If there are particular logical issues that prevent you from being open to the possibility of God's existence, then take time to research them. There are a great many very intelligent and well educated Christians out there: is it really the case that you know something they never realized? It's more likely that there is an answer to whatever objection you have. Be open to the possibility that the answer may be right.

If God doesn't exist, then all this will cost you is some of your time and energy. If He does exist then you may gain all the worldly good you were searching for (family, happiness, meaning, community) and the far greater good of salvation from your sins and hope for eternal life.

I can understand an atheist who has no desire to be religious deciding not to go through all that effort, but if you're an atheist who does desire to be religious then the cost-benefit ratio seems pretty good.

Pardon the question, and I hope it doesn't come across as too provocatory, but -- if there were evidence that believing every statement made by modern Progressivism made your life easier, and on the balance made you happier -- would you then go through this process in order to become a sincere Progressivist?

More comments

You can certainly try to believe.

You can, but it won't work if you have any intellectual honesty about your own beliefs.

I can understand an atheist who has no desire to be religious deciding not to go through all that effort, but if you're an atheist who does desire to be religious then the cost-benefit ratio seems pretty good.

What about atheists who have been through all that effort?

I've seen this kind of advice before: "Believe hard enough and you will." It sounds like clapping your hands for Tinkerbell, or the New Agey "manifest your desires (by wishing real hard)."

I can see how "Give it a try, maybe it will suit you" might work for someone agnostic who's never really thought about religion before, but it's not going to work for someone who has, in fact, spent time trying it and concluded there was nothing there. And advice that amounts to "pretend you're a believer so you can score a trad wife" seems pretty unethical to me.

I'm someone who probably wouldn't have trouble living a Mormon or Catholic or Muslim lifestyle. But there is no way I could go through life pretending to actually believe what they believe.

More comments

I mean I'm literally reading Ratzinger right now, so there is probably something to this advice. Can't say where it'll lead me though, despite the clear necessity of religion, I have a hard time overcoming the silliness of ritual. I may or may not remain the cynical perennialist I've landed at for now, time will tell.

More comments

I've known a few Christian (not specifically LDS) apologetics who defend faith as a choice to believe, and that doubt is a generally-inescapable part of that process. An earnest "I want to believe" may go further than you think.

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