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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What you describe are also actionable ways for someone to improve themselves.
No, being high value is being high value. You're high value to yourself, to other men and to women. Why? Because you provide value and this is broadly useful.
The point is to avoid focusing on what women want because that distorts and ruins your ability to evaluate things. If you focus on improving you'll be better off regardless of whether women like you better or not. Impressing women isn't the only reason to do things, it's one reason among many. People are looking for shortcuts to get ahead in life but that usually doesn't work very well, whether that is for impressing women, making friends or getting ahead in your career.
I'm married with kids but it's still as useful to me to be seen as high value by society around me as it was when I was 18 and single, because both the perception of high value and actual high value is useful.
What? This is just circular reasoning.
No it doesn't. If a guy wants to focus on attracting women, follows online advice of lifting weights and improving appearance, and thereby starts attracting more women, then that's mission accomplished. It doesn't need to be cloaked in some superstitious silliness of "it only works if you think you're doing for yourself instead of specifically your ability to attract women, bro".
Again, men's perception of "value" is utterly warped around what women want for obvious evolutionary reasons. Stuff like physical fitness, having lots of money, being outgoing and confident, etc. are all stuff women value, and so men value it in themselves and others. There's a reason it's very difficult to think of a male role-model who wouldn't be successful with women.
How about all the scientists and philosophers throughout history who achieved incredible things that did not in any way correlate to success with women? The path of the scholar or monk is a totally legitimate historical archetype for men to aspire toward, but such men have not historically been sexually successful.
I'll admit that scientists are probably the best counterexample, although I don't think it's a killshot. Scientists are well-respected, and while it's not the path to becoming a billionaire, they're also well paid. "Scientist" can sometimes evoke notions of a weird introvert in a lab with thick glasses, but that's not the type of person who's a role model. Instead, people model themselves on someone like Oppenheimer who was a very respected leader in the field and who had multiple lovers.
Monks are just flatly not popular male role models, outside of maybe their stoicism which is just a conventionally appreciated male trait.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is this a joke?
More effort than this, please.
More options
Context Copy link
Not in the slightest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link