site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32323 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Women value economic success in men much more than the reverse, while men value a woman's appearance. The upshot for men is that if you spend 10 years developing your economic value you're now richer.

it's the reason men are more likely to pursue high-income careers. I contend that women lacking such incentives hurts them in the long run, and complaining that "women don't have to worry as much about being economically successful" is like the first twin complaining that his brother is allowed to just play videogames all day.

The tricky caveat there is that the biological underpinning of 'men value women's appearance' is largely that men look for signs of genetic fitness and fertility, which has the downstream effect of having plentiful and healthy children.

So if you define success solely in terms of wealth accumulation, sure men are incentivized to 'succeed.' But evolution defines success in terms of make more copies of yourself. In THAT regard, the ONLY REASON MEN ACCUMULATE WEALTH is so they can try to fulfill the biological imperative and attract a woman who will let him knock her up and he can provide a stable upbringing for the offspring.

And women, as the gatekeepers of reproduction, are generally more likely to get their genes passed on and 'succeed' in the evolution game. What this matters to an individual woman I don't know, but in terms of the human species this has massive implications.

Even if humans have managed to sidetrack this imperative into nonreproductive pursuits, the point remains as to WHY men are doing what they do, and WHY women manage to get by without having to work at wealth accumulation.

So I dunno. Maybe women would be okay with a deal where they try to look pretty, and the men try as hard as they can to accumulate wealth, and then they come together so that the woman gets the wealth and stability, and the man gets a much better shot at passing on his genes?

The larger point is that men become successful in their life in large part so they can attract a woman who will then SHARE IN HIS SUCCESS. Her side of the deal, HER incentive, is to optimize for attracting such a guy and keeping him, so that she can get the wealth without the mental or physical efforts.

Let's consider the fact that the richest women in the world almost universally inherited their wealth.

Not a bad deal. Shack up with a wealthy guy (or guy who ends up wealthy) and you and/or your children might end up sitting on a massive wealth pile without having to put in nearly as much effort as the MALE who accumulated it.

Yes, inheritance wealth isn't gender locked, I'm just noting that AGAIN, from the evolutionary perspective, reproducing and having a giant pile of utility just sitting there waiting for you and your progeny is maximum success, regardless of what other 'incentives' you point at.

I have no idea why whether men's preferences are biological or not matters to my point (leaving aside the fact that women are also driven by biology, and this also leads to positive downstream effects for their children).

I agree that one can frame success in evolutionary terms, but I don't know why one would since virtually nobody actually pursues this. It's even less relevant when you're arguing women should "try to look pretty" since the quality of your make up has virtually nothing to do with fertility or genetic fitness.

It feels like you are trying to reframe my comment into some sort of familiar, pro-woman/woke argument. Let me make my point again, hopefully more clearly:

Men face social incentives that encourage them to develop their human capital and productivity. This is good for the men themselves, irrespective of their romantic success, as well as their wife's children (and, incidentally, good for society (at least modern society)).

Women face social incentives that encourage them to look pretty. This has far less value for them, does nothing for their husband's children (since make up and working out does not improve genetic fitness and actively detracts for familial resources), and, incidentally, is not pro-social (since beautify is ultimately zero-sum).

I'm not claiming men are evil for caring how good a woman looks. I'm not claiming that women are angelic for having socially-aligned preferences. A justification or explanation of their preferences seems largely irrelevant to me.

I am claiming that saying "women have it easier, since they don't have as much pressure to build human capital" is a very incomplete analysis.

This has far less value for them, does nothing for their husband's children (since make up and working out does not improve genetic fitness and actively detracts for familial resources), and, incidentally, is not pro-social (since beautify is ultimately zero-sum).

I don't know how in the heck you're defining 'value' if you're ignoring that a pretty woman is able to gain access to a successful man's wealth by looking pretty.

Like, yeah, women don't directly build up wealth and capital. Because there's literally never been a point in history where they've had to do so. Different incentives. Yes. Of course.

Because they've got an easier path to it. They can acquire value from a man, without the effort. Whatever value a man builds, a woman can access, for virtually any definition of 'value' you point to.

How in the world does this end up looking like a negative on the balance sheet for being female?

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