site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   32506 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 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.

10
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

IIRC the statistically average Ukrainian woman wanted to be a mail order bride before the war, so it’s entirely possible that the vast majority of the most fertile women leave and never come back.

Geeeezus.

But gets to my point. If Ukraine wins, they've got a decades-long rebuilding project ahead of them, and their standards of living will be comparatively horrendous in the meantime. How do you convince people (esp. females) to return, stick around, and have babies when they could just retreat to a wealthier country and shack up with a local there?

And if you CAN'T convince them to return and have kids, then the country dies out in a couple generations anyway, despite rebuilding efforts.

That said, the thought has crossed my mind that if my dating life doesn't improve over the next few years, the idea of finding a displaced Ukrainian woman who would presumably be quite grateful to not be in an active warzone vs. the current elevated standards of American women has a certain appeal.

Honestly, if you’re a conservative American man like most motteizeans, finding a middle of the roader to moderate liberal by Ukrainian standards woman from a country poorer than Mexico(or for that matter some of the even worse shitholes south of it) is probably a lot easier than finding a local who shares your values.

We had polls, Motte is about same R:D in vote as USA total, this is only relative right compared to typical online forum.

Based on my experience of Ukrainian women, a lot of conservative motteizeans might find those women TOO unwoke.

So DR guys(of whom we have more than our fair share) should get over their Russia fandom.

There's no real difference between the stance on culture war topics of Russians and Ukrainians (and Poles). Ukraine has a much lower power distance, but on all the topics this thread cares about we are within the confidence interval of the prevailing media winds blowing in opposing directions. The existence of openly LGBT service members in the Ukrainian army, for example, doesn't prevent the rest of the army from calling the Russians fighting against them "faggots".

At least if that fandom is based on Russia being somehow unique in Eastern Europe, except in terms of inferiority complex (reconciling itself to no longer being a superpower, a bit like the UK and France post WWII) and pessimism (AFAIK it's bad form in Russia to be positive when asked "How are you?" or "How was your day?", which can be tedious in a relationship).

AFAIK it's bad form in Russia to be positive when asked "How are you?" or "How was your day?"

No it's not. It's just that positive response rate is closer to 50% than to 100%

deleted

This isn't an adult forum (or a mature one - we're thoroughly immature, much of the time) but basically just dating Ukrainian women in various parts of Europe, where I work. Unlike other Eastern European women I've known, who were thoroughly Twitterized culturally, the Russian, Romanian, and Ukrainian women I have known (intimately or casually, with a sadly small sample of the former) have been anti-abortion, trad or moderately trad about gender roles, racially insensitive (including towards other Eastern Europeans, e.g. gypsies and Albanians) and softly anti-Semitic. Often Christian in a vague, spiritual way, e.g. sexually liberated and suspicious of clergy, and just as into Asian mumbo-jumbo as Christian mumbo-jumbo.

Personally I liked them because they were forthright, insensitive, and really, really liked debating, which are the top personality traits in a woman for me. I happily date both conservative and progressive women with such personalities, as long as they don't mind me speaking my mind and they don't hide their own opinions. And, while Eastern European women often drink too much, they are also very often good at not eating too much, and I like tall/slim women.

And, while Eastern European women often drink too much, they are also very often good at not eating too much, and I like tall/slim women

If we are going full on with stereotypes, they also often tend to age very very badly. I guess it is a combination of dry skin, too much cosmetics, alcohol and unhealthy diets.

True. The melancholy attitude probably doesn't help either. We may not have effective anti-ageing medicine yet, but stress and depression is a great method if you want to age rapidly.

Also most Russian women I know seem to be in rather shitty relationships. Maybe it is just my small sample size. I don't know what is up with this.

No, this is also the consensus in my experience and that of everyone I know. The only Slavic women I know in happy relationships are dating/married to Germans or Brits. However, I also know a lot of toxic behaviours among Slavic women, e.g. looking for drama or cheating. I also suspect there's a sample effect: the Slavic women I know (and probably you know) are emigrants/students, who are often unusually high in anxiety and attachment issues.

racially insensitive (including towards other Eastern Europeans, e.g. gypsies and Albanians)

That's nothing. In Europe, everyone hates gypsies (and pikeys, if they are British or Irish and educated enough to know the difference). Our so-called-liberal-elite just know to shut up about it in public. /r/historymemes is down, but there are some epic memes on this point.

True, but I think that blue tribe Americans (most people on here) would be surprised by that.

Blue Americans look at Western Europe, and love to pretend it is the anti-south; a mythical place where none of what they hate about their own nation exists. This is of course very silly, as are Red Americans who pick up on this and look down on Europeans the same way they do with their own cosmopolitan countrymen.

These attitudes are (very annoyingly) fed by the issue that the only Europeans most Americans will deal with are the cosmopolitan ones themselves. Normal people don't like having to shift to English all that much and will stick to themselves, leaving the everyday 'voice' of Europe to what is our blue tribe equivalent.

Good points. The cultural divides in Europe are generally big, even if they're different in complex ways from the US, e.g. being a Christian Democrat, a VVD supporter etc. is acceptable in cosmopolitan circles in Germanic countries (in my limited experience) whereas in Italy or the UK things are more fraught. I can usually guess people's political views in the UK or Italy, whereas in e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, or the parts of Eastern Europe I know, it's much harder.

Is it really fair to say that most people on here are blue tribe Americans? That's not my read.

(actually, if we do a survey at some point, we should totally have it include what tribe people most identify with)

Let's check the original definition:

The Blue Tribe is most classically typified by liberal political beliefs, vague agnosticism, supporting gay rights, thinking guns are barbaric, eating arugula, drinking fancy bottled water, driving Priuses, reading lots of books, being highly educated, mocking American football, feeling vaguely like they should like soccer but never really being able to get into it, getting conspicuously upset about sexists and bigots, marrying later, constantly pointing out how much more civilized European countries are than America, and listening to “everything except country”.

Perhaps not quite, though I imagine that a lot of people on here tick a high proportion of those boxes, with a few being rare e.g. liberal political beliefs about immigration, conspicuously being upset about sexists or bigots, or driving Priuses. The same would be true of the Grey Tribe definition:

There is a partly-formed attempt to spin off a Grey Tribe typified by libertarian political beliefs, Dawkins-style atheism, vague annoyance that the question of gay rights even comes up, eating paleo, drinking Soylent, calling in rides on Uber, reading lots of blogs, calling American football “sportsball”, getting conspicuously upset about the War on Drugs and the NSA, and listening to filk

Many of these fit, but I think that libertarians are overrepresented on here but not a majority, and Dawkins-style atheism is present but quite rare.

Not everyone, but only because the modal northwest European has never met one.

I've noticed an appreciable number of my old acquaintances who have gotten married to and had kids with women who are first generation immigrants, including from Latin-American or Eastern Asian countries. And by all accounts they appear happy and stable.

Compare that to friends who married a woman they met in college, most have kids now, some don't, and a handful are divorced already.

But the real eye-opener is the female friends who didn't lock down a guy in college or shortly thereafter, a few of whom do have kids now, and they seemingly spend most of their time angry at the world/males for letting them down, and 90% of them are clearly letting their personal health slip, too. I'd be hard pressed to think of any who seem happily single AND seem appealing as a potential partner. Thems just the breaks.

To make my point explicit: It seems like near 100% of friends who married immigrants are still married and currently happy, 75-90% of those who married American women are still married and currently happy, and MAYBE 10% of the women who are still unmarried are currently happy.

The almost inescapable conclusion is that if you're an American guy who is entering his thirties and is single, if you limit your dating options to women who are in your peer group in terms of age, nationality, and education you'll find exceedingly slim pickings. The best partners will have been snagged early and those that remain will have high standards and shitty attitudes to go with it. So finding a woman who isn't a ticking divorce bomb almost certainly does require broadening the search.

Single men tend to be, and I can't quite find the right word here, but perhaps evil captures it. By this, I mean they have personality traits that make them a bad person. They are cruel, uncaring, and obviously this way.

I don't know about that. Granted, Burners and medical students might not be the most representative sample, but I've seen plenty of people that couldn't get dates despite their best efforts. To me they seemed like more or less decent human beings. The medical students were short; the burners were autistic and sometimes short as well. I will give you that there might be a kind of assholery that only comes out when these people interact with women.

Would you describe this man as being evil?

Single men tend to be, and I can't quite find the right word here, but perhaps evil captures it. By this, I mean they have personality traits that make them a bad person. They are cruel, uncaring, and obviously this way.

How does that square with that men convicted for crimes have about same number of sexual partners that men which were not convicted do?

Also frankly a lot of attractive 30+ men aren't going to be dating women their own age as a preference, which further muddies the water.

The almost inescapable conclusion is that if you're an American guy who is entering his thirties and is single, if you limit your dating options to women who are in your peer group in terms of age, nationality, and education you'll find exceedingly slim pickings. The best partners will have been snagged early and those that remain will have high standards and shitty attitudes to go with it. So finding a woman who isn't a ticking divorce bomb almost certainly does require broadening the search.

Well said. This was the conclusion that I came to. You should re-post this next time we have a thread on relationships.

I think I've made similar statements before, but I certainly will add that thought next time I see a thread on it.

The dating market in the U.S. is far worse than it was even 15 years ago, and if you've been out of said market for a while you probably don't realize how the combination of women raising their standards to absurd levels while simultaneously having less to offer in a relationship... SIMULTANEOUS with (and related to) millennial white women becoming far more politically liberal than average has made it absolute hell for your average guy to navigate, and has likely killed many mens' hope of ever finding a suitable long-term partner. Not just creating incels, mind, but creating the type of guy who ends up in Andrew Tate et al.'s orbit because at least they offer a positive view of masculinity and some hope of getting laid.

And literally nobody seems to have any plans on how to improve the situation. Indeed, the not-so-subtle cultural zeitgeist instead tells women that they're doing everything perfectly and don't need to settle... ever, and telling men to suck it up and stop whining.

So my TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL thought experiment: how might this dynamic shift a bit if we intentionally imported, say, a few hundred thousand attractive and eligible female Ukrainian 'refugees?'

I've heard it said that only women and children should be accepted as refugees; the men should have been fighting for the fatherland. That makes sense for wars. I don't know if it makes sense for natural disasters.

It doesn't really make sense for many wars either. The refugee crisis nearest to people's minds is 2015 Syria; getting the hell out rather than fighting for your pick of war criminals may well have been the moral thing to do, be you man, woman, or child.

In theory they could have formed a militia to fight the war criminals, and could have been expected to.

Very slim personal anecdote but I recently got pulled into a major event for a Young Conservative group over here in Australia. Black tie affair, lots of young people etc.

I found it pretty shocking to notice that of say 50ish young (Under 25) male attendees they only had about 2 female partners between them, and it's not like this was a Breitbart gathering. Reasonably attractive, suit-wearing, university & private school-educated young men of decent breeding and yet being a conservative makes you so staggeringly unable to compete in domestic dating circles these days. The very tiny smattering of girls who were there as members seemed to be dating 10+ years older and for either career progression or tapping developed finances.

I've seen the impact myself of having a Hinge profile set Conservative v Liberal (legitimately 99% decline in matches by indicating rightward leanings), though I've been off the market for a few months now due to finding a foreign-born girl who's a sane, reasonably-conservative slender woman.

The very tiny smattering of girls who were there as members seemed to be dating 10+ years older and for either career progression or tapping developed finances.

That's the other "fun" aspect of modern dating. Males are competing not just amongst direct peers, but with older males for the same pool of eligible women.

I won't go so far as to say that older men are actively trying to hamper younger men's dating lives, but imagine being a 25-30 year old of modest means and uncertain future and trying to find a partner, and noticing that many women your age are being taken by 35-50 year olds with more resources and 'experience', and are happy to occupy these women's romantic lives during their 'prime' years, even if there's no intention of a real long-term relationship. When I first started dating in earnest this factor was significant enough it was impossible to really ignore. Losing out on dates to an established guy who had 'more to offer' due to being wealthier is a blow to the ego.

For a younger guy, unless you won the genetic lottery you literally cannot compete with that on equal terms, since wealth and status usually take time to accrue.

Some serious demoralization given the already harsh environment. Older guys have no reason to stop doing this, either, since younger women will keep expressing interest and the plight of younger males doesn't really factor into their decision.

I've been off the market for a few months now due to finding a foreign-born girl who's a sane, reasonably-conservative slender woman.

Another little bit of datum to add to the pile. Serious relationships seem to be a commodity Americans have to import, these days.

Older guys have no reason to stop doing this, either, since younger women will keep expressing interest and the plight of younger males doesn't really factor into their decision.

Also frankly the older guys had to graduate through that younger period in order to become datable, so can't blame them for trying to reap something after getting through their twenties

For a younger guy, unless you won the genetic lottery you literally cannot compete with that on equal terms, since wealth and status usually take time to accrue.

You need to be an extremely conscientious, hardworking, determined guy and have been busting your ass since at the latest your early teens. If you've been working very hard AND are fairly smart and charismatic AND were born into a middle-class household, you might be able to make $250k/year by the time you're 27.

In all honesty, this does not seem like a bad ideal to set for young men: you need to be exceptional in order to find a partner. Even those who fail will have worked hard and reaped the reward.

It think the issue is that this will be subject to a power law distribution, not a normal distribution.

It won't be the case where if a guy is at least moderately attractive/charismatic, puts in constant efforts and is reasonably intelligent he will on average land a six figure job by 27. It's going to be more like a 20% chance he lands a massively high paying job, another 20% he lands something paying high-five to low-six figs, and like a 60% chance he ends up in a standard job paying 'enough' but not extravagantly. (Figures are blatantly asspulled at this point, can look for actual figures later)

There's just so many pitfalls that can prevent a guy from breaking through to true wealth early on.

And of course consider that a guy who busts his ass to this extent in his early life might actually hamper his dating chances during that time because he won't be nearly as fun for women since he works all the time.

So what you're proposing sounds like it could be a recipe for creating the older, established guy who leverages his wealth in his late 30's to play around with the younger women he couldn't get when he was younger.

Now, I agree it's a good ideal to strive for, but I'm pretty sure that the only way there's actual change in norms is to reign in female behavior somehow.

More comments

Is it possible that conservative women are simply more willing to engage in large age gap relationships?

That's an interesting and somewhat surprising observation. As I recall, in mid-America, married women are about as likely to vote conservative as their husbands, but I'm not sure how that translates to willingness to attend formal public political events.

I'm in what'd probably be considered the most Left-Leaning major Australian city, but even chatting to the guys it's pretty staggering how difficult it seemed to be to get a date. It was a Young Monarchists (I owed a close friend a favor, no particular personal royal inclinations) event so kind of a okay milquetoast career builder for conservative political aspirants.

My suspicion is that young conservative women are acutely aware of the ratios involved + a lot more willing & able to date up in terms of age and success, which produces a hollowing effect for young conservatives where the ratio's already 90:10 and that 10 are largely monopolized by middle-aged conservatives.

Does "young monarchists" attract pretty typical conservative demographics? (I don't know what axes are most important, but I imagine religiosity could be one) Not sure how that would affect dating prospects.

More comments

Why do you say that millennial white women are more politically liberal than non white millennial women?

Not necessarily non-white women are less politically liberal than nonwhite women, but white, college-educated women are across almost every stat I can find the single most overall politically liberal group around.

White women are more liberal than average, across the board, whilst nonwhite women are more likely to be more politically moderate/closer to the average.

White women are more liberal than average, across the board, whilst nonwhite women are more likely to be more politically moderate/closer to the average.

What do you mean by this? I remember seeing maps "who would be USA president only if women voted", "who would be USA president only if white women voted".

Maybe you meant what white women are more liberal than thier men and nonwhite women are more conservative than their men?

I'm saying that compared to virtually any other demographic white women are more liberal on average, with this especially notable amongst the college-educated ones.

So my TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL thought experiment: how might this dynamic shift a bit if we intentionally imported, say, a few hundred thousand attractive and eligible female Ukrainian 'refugees?'

If the past is any indicator, schlubby American guys would marry them, and as soon as they managed to get citizenship the women would divorce them, leaving everyone (except the Ukranians) more miserable than before.

There goes my backup plan if I couldn’t find someone here…

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Ordering up a $5k mail order bride from an agency Ukraine is not what is being proposed.

A man opening up their dating prospects to women outside your peer group in terms of age, nationality, and education would likely lead to far more healthy relationships.

The whole point is I'm not sure that the past is as reliable an indicator, as the sexual marketplace has never been this distorted before. There are more single, 'eligible' guys out there than there has been at any point in the past. It seems unlikely that 'schlubby' guys are the only lonely ones left without partners who would be likely to gain an advantage from an influx of eligible females.

So any event which shifts the balance towards males has the potential to bring, for lack of a better term, 'sanity' back to the situation by driving women to actually settle rather than hold out for the best possible bargain.

Or, it is of course possible that adding MORE females to an already female-driven dynamic would be the equivalent of pouring gasoline on the fire.

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