site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   31683 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, the failure of many men was in not screening the mothers of their children for acceptable behaviour before knocking them up.

And what would you advise they do: be celibate for life? Not have children at all? Being cheated on sucks, I will agree. So does divorce. But that isn't the worst thing that can happen. I've seen plenty of things just as bad or worse. Food addiction, drug addiction, attempted murder, physical abuse...

No, you date women, have sex with them (with protection) and observe their behaviour. If they are not 'wife material' (whatever that is according to you) then you move on to someone that is. You don't try to change them, you just move on. Nothing about this method has anything to do with celibacy. If you are talking about the low % chance of a condom breakage and then an actual conception happening, well I would mitigate this by either accepting the risk or not sticking my dick in obvious crazy.

Jonah (for all the faults I have with him as a typical Hollywood progressive) did it the right way. All the Twitter noise is just nonsense that will blow over quickly. I think the fact she needed to post their text history a year after their breakup for 'mental health reasons' is a sign that she regrets him getting away and needs validation from others to stop her bad feelings.

deleted

Date the sort of woman who might be described as "modest." Who is pretty enough, but not a performer or surf instructor and model. This, of course, comes with its own drawbacks; she'll be harder to bring to the film premier, and maybe won't make your friends jealous or know anything in bed.

It sounds like the hope and expectation was to date a performer who loves attention, and that she would come around to increased modesty based on conversations/love/childbirth, but it's not too surprising that didn't work out, especially when these were full grown women of 30 or so.

or know anything in bed

There's a stereotype that it's highly conventionally attractive people that aren't good at sex

I'd love to know if someone has formally investigated this. It doesn't jibe with my personal experiences very well at all.

Pickup Artists had a lot of anecdotal data about this, but it never panned out into solid knowledge. There's no surety that having sex with an uglier girl with better 'skills', is a more enjoyable experience than a model (of your type) that acts like a starfish (due to limerence or your hormonal/nervous system firing on all cylinders)

Completely agree. But even on the original question I'm not persuaded the correlation is all that (inversely?) strong. I've had sex with mid or ugly women who were crap in bed, and with gorgeous women who were enthusiastic and passionate.

Hmm. If you have a lot of something, you can get away with not learning the things that other people need to learn. Many beautiful people get away with being assholes or not as competent. Trust fund babies born with silver spoons in their mouths sometimes misuse their privilege in ways that peasants like you and I that must work for a living can't pull off. Not every rich person goes to Yale, gets trashed at parties, and urinates off of balconies onto the peasants below...but a few do. When you have the same peasants you just pissed on at midnight sucking up to you the next day because your dad's a billionaire and you've got connections...you can be an asshole if you like.

I'm glad to see that you're coming around, if this comment says what I think it says.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time we spoke you acted as if you'd rather be celibate than take a chance on women! I'm not being rude here, I think it's a good change.

Hmm.

I have heard that there was some kind of unique wisdom that you could only get from sex and relationships. As such, it makes sense to be less choosy about your first relationship than subsequent ones. I am very aware that if you are quite unattractive or autistic, sex and relationships for both men and women can be a kind of Faustian bargain. It's up to each individual to decide what they're OK with; as long as they're not being evil, it's their choice.

Bringing children into a situation like this makes things more...complicated, though.

Also, the Devil generally holds up his end of the bargain, but gets his pound of flesh in the end.

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