site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   32553 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 Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

this will be subject to a power law distribution, not a normal distribution.

That is true for anything that has to do with capital. A thing is capital if having some helps you get more of it. As such, social capital (the number of friends you have; how many favors you can call in and how large) and financial capital ($) follow those same power laws. I mean, the archetypal "Chad" is not a lazy couch potato. Yes, he won the genetic lottery or at least did well. But he was also busting his ass since he was six, practicing football or something, lifting weights in high school, figuring out how to be more popular. Depending on where he is, he might also be hitting the books as well.

Hmm. If a guy is moderately attractive/charismatic, puts in lots of effort, and is smart academically-skilled enough to graduate in the top ~20 percent of his college class in a STEM subject? If he's going for a low-risk, medium-reward option he can become an actuary or a physician's assistant and be more or less assured of making that much. Granted, $110k at 25 is doing well for yourself but the 24yo physician's assistant isn't rich when he's making that much. He could become a travel nurse, as well. Those are basically guaranteed low six figures. If he is really good at math he might be able to be a quant.

Hitting the big bucks probably takes either more risk or having a side hustle like real estate or business ownership that pays off well.

As for reigning in female behavior: why would this be desirable? You've (at least, as per this model) got the successful, conscientious, lucky, charismatic guys with lots of success with women, and you have the unlucky, lazy awkward dudes alone. Yes, there's the old chestnut that young single dudes might go for broke and tear the place up, but I think that's only the case if they're also impoverished. The average perennially-single American male wouldn't do well in prison and knows it.

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