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 -
With the release of the recent Barbie movie, the old gender debates on the internet have been reignited. (Admittedly, I haven't watched it yet, might pen down my thoughts once I do.)
I recently encountered another article by a heterosexual, middle-class woman discussing how we can assist young men in discovering their masculinity. The piece, confidently titled map out of the wilderness, repeats the narrative tropes that countless similar works in journalism tend to focus on.
Does it argue that men are disoriented because women are no longer subservient? Indeed. Does it accuse men of falling for 'destructive' ideologues such as Jordan Peterson and Bronze Age Pervert whose political ideologies aren't personally favored? Yes. Does it claim men are discontent because women wish for them to behave more femininely? Absolutely. Does it state there's a lack of 'positive masculinity?' Oh, for sure.
To credit the writer, Christine Emba, she does highlight some of the more sinister issues that venture slightly beyond the bounds of conventional discourse. She openly criticizes feminists and women in general for refusing to assist men, citing an instance where Obama was chastised for attempting to help boys, and thousands of women denounced him in protest.
What prompted me to respond to this article was a moment of blatant self-awareness by the author, who admits when reproached by a man that she doesn't want to be intimate with men who heed her advice (emphasis mine):
Yes, dear writer, you recoiled in acknowledgment. If you, a talking head opining on this topic, felt this way, consider the reaction of those numerous women with lesser self-awareness when they encounter these feeble, effeminate men.
However, all the discussions around gender roles, sexual relations, power dynamics, and 'incels' are missing the real issue. They're distractions, veils obscuring the core problem.
At the risk of being cliche, I'll reference Nietzsche's most well-known line:
Why has this single paragraph echoed throughout recent centuries as one of the deepest and most frequently reiterated explanations of modernity's moral crisis? Obviously, Nietzsche, a self-proclaimed atheist, doesn't imply we've executed deicide in the literal sense. What we've done is obliterated any transcendent reason for existence. There is no apparent reason why young men should exhibit concern for their neighbors, work towards self-improvement, curtail their desires, or even make an effort to contribute to society.
For a young man in a contemporary world that is entirely individual-centric, what is the appeal of any altruistic act?
Regardless of the religion you choose, these systems provided us with a motive beyond primal, materialistic pleasures to care. They provided us with an aim to pursue. Most importantly, they offered us a social framework within which we could strive collectively with others and receive commendation for our benevolent deeds.
Nietzsche's suggested solution is that the New Men must 'become deities' to be worthy of God's murder. Regrettably, as we've found out, not everyone can ascend to godhood. Certainly some of the highest status and highest agency men can create their own values, but what about the rest of us?
How is a young man in his twenties, armed with a useless college degree and forced to work at a supermarket to get by, supposed to find purpose in what he's doing? How can he feel accomplished, or masculine, or empowered? He definitely can't rely on God or religion for that feeling. If he tries, he'll be overwhelmed by relentless mockery and cynicism from his society.
Returning to Ms. Emba's proposed solution, she states that men need to experience masculinity by:
This, she asserts, is 'Constructive Masculinity.' Let's look past the glaring issue that it's a woman attempting to define what masculinity should be - the question remains: why?
Without some larger mission, most men aren't going to be motivated whatsoever. Men need a reason to exist. And not a poor, weak reason like 'following your dreams' or 'getting money' or 'being a good person.' Men need something to strive for, something worth dying for, something that they can use to shield themselves from the terror of the void.
Of course this problem is applicable to far more people than just young Western males. This lack of meaning, lack of purpose, is at the core of modernity's societal problems. It waits like a tiger in the shadows, seizing us in our moments and weakness and pulling us into a black pit of despair, nihilism. Emptiness.
When you're on your deathbed, where will you look for comfort? What force or being or god will let you face your own death without flinching? What water will purify you?
How will you cleanse your hands of blood?
The key to understanding the “problem with men” today is to look at contingent rewards. Men are motivated toward behaviors by the rewards that follow most efficiently. The rewards are the same as always: sex, money, social status, and fun about sum up the most powerful rewards that men pursue socially. With contingent rewards in mind, consider Andrew Tate.
Andrew Tate made his money by manipulating women into his online prostitution ring, who then manipulated lonely men into sending them their money. He also, in the past couple years, has sat down for interviews with journalists like Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan; has won the admiration of millions of young men; has a number of attractive women profess interest in him; has riches and status symbols; and has even scored a date with Jordan Peterson’s daughter. This last one symbolically sums up the whole point to be made: the man who embodies moralizing to the public couldn’t even influence his own daughter to not spend time with a wealthy criminal. None of Peterson’s words had any influence on behavior. The men pursue their rewards, and his daughter pursues the rewarded man. What do men take away from this?
What matters are the rewards, and the behaviors that efficiently lead to the rewards. Andrew Tate, regardless his immorality, has obtained great rewards that are independent of any toothless “moral attack”. Because men want only rewards, they aren’t going care much for the complaining of random news writers and politicians and priests. What does that have to do with me becoming dominant and bedding attractive women, which is what I want? And so it’s no surprise that some men look up to Andrew Tate, without a care in the world for his crimes or immorality or the golden rule of morality or such things. There is no “moral police” to make any impact on his rewards!
Now you might say, “well hold it right there, buck-o, because I’ve see men on Twitter rail against Andrew Tate”. Yes, you do. And have you considered that railing against Tate is merely a way for them to rail Kate later that week? Have you not noticed that those men live in cities, that their tweets have a lot of engagement from women, that their public Spotify playlists contain Mazzy Star? Andrew Tate would travel all the way to Romania to obtain his social rewards, and you don’t think this guy’s lazy tweet isn’t in some mysterious way motivated by the same root interest? He’s not standing outside the Romanian embassy, he is expressing a view on a social media platform filled with women. He’s not writing this in the boy’s group chat. He’s not going over to 4chan to express his view to those “at-risk”. It’s performative. And yet, it’s not any more performative than all social expressions. All of it is behavior performed to obtain reward.
Now let’s look at the other extreme. Incels? Incels don’t exist in a quantity significant enough to warrant any care. “Incel” is the deactivation word that cues our mind to turn off from thinking deeply. (Apropos, it works by castigating a group of men as unable to obtain the most foundational reward.) The opposite of Andrew Tate is the sexless and wifeless. What’s going on with them?
In the case of the loveless men, there are a few major problems. First, there is an absurd amount of superstimuli accessible to mollify male energy: tik tok, porn, and video games. There is a clear association between hours spent on these and sexlessness whether or not any scientist has studied it. Second, we have eradicated what I will call the “foreplay” of social reward. There was a time where young men and young women would flirt at any opportunity in social “intercourse”, and where not complimenting a woman on her beauty was seen as faux pas. Women would have to be subtle about rejecting men flatly, so as to not ruin the delicate social gamification at play. This “social foreplay” incentivized prosocial behavior from both sexes. In its absence, women look for their required allotment of attention by posting lewds on social media, and men look for it by looking at said lewds and watching porn. Women, too, have their version of porn. It’s Mazzy Star songs and passively using dating apps.
The third issue for the loveless, as evidenced by the differential of female yearly sex versus male yearly sex, is dating apps. This is boring to dwell on, but the same men who watch the Andrew Tate content are mastering the art of manipulating women for easier sex on dating apps. Because it’s morally illegal today for fathers to control their daughters (see: the Petersons), women are routinely taken advantage of for easy sex. At the same time, some of them believe it’s fine to have short-term sexual flings, because they have no moral training and in any case there are no moral police. The moral result will be at lot of loveless men and women, a lot of old whores and old virgins, perhaps more assisted and unassisted suicides in the (not-)coming decades.
So we see neatly that social dysfunction springs out of perverse social reward structures. The only possible solution is to put order to social reward, which was the norm in human history. What do we make of religion? Here’s something to dwell on: religiosity across milieu perfectly tracks with how well the religion punishes immoral behavior and rewards good behavior. At the various heights of Christian practice, being a sinner meant ostracism or extreme loss of social capital. Being a “good Christian” meant men doing business with you and marrying their daughters to you. In current Hasidim, and current traditional Islam, we see the same phenomenon. A religion without intense judgment on behavior becomes weak, ineffectual, incapable of truly changing the nature of men.
When we talk about men in the past who lived for God, we forget that living for God just so happened to line up exactly with the efficient path to social reward. We forget that God was to them the justification for all social reinforcement and punishment. For the Amish, social status and marriageability are actually decided by righteousness — not with perfect accuracy, but more than 50%. Community participation is essential, and those who do not participate are completely excluded from the polis. These also happened to be the most fecund Americans.
Overall, I guess I totally disagree with the article’s framing of the issues. Masculinity, manliness, Incels? Red herrings. The issue is that men chase rewards, and the rewards today are disordered. In sum, there is less reward for marriage and honesty, there is more reward for pursuing entertainment alternatives, and there are less available women because they too choose disordered rewards. Whether men “behave like men” or whatever is completely erroneous and doesn’t matter.
Well, there are two ways to look at the pursuit of noble goals. The first way is to declare that there is no nobility in any goal pursuit, because in fact the pursuer just wants primitive satisfactions. The second way — my own way — is to instead say that the noble pursuit is comprised of primitive satisfactions. Nobility itself is constructed of less noble enjoyments, but this doesn’t mean that the noble pursuit is not real. Let me give a random example of a Kurdish woman dying for her home village against a radical Islamist invasion. This is noble, right? I would say so. So why would she do it? First, because she was raised in a tribal and traditional society with strict moral rules (eg infidelity means jail time), so various enjoyments in her life were seen as originating from her Kurd family and tribal ties, rather than her own individual actions and efforts. This naturally creates a love for her tribe and family. Second, something good for the Kurds is good for those whom she loves and who look like her and act like her and live like her and share her blood. We can call this a “selfish noble action” if we want: she sacrifices herself to make the lives of those she is most like better, because she was raised to learn that she herself is a part of a whole — and this learning required the tribe to exert control over individuals’ behaviors. Most selfishly, her actions benefit her siblings, cousins, and her children if applicable.
The problem is that if we analyze the lives of the people who seriously pursue noble things, they always exist within an ecosystem of rewards. The architects, composers, authors, and scientists expect to get paid and be admired. They expect to earn accolades and compete over them. They take slights to their status — their worthiness of reward — extremely seriously. They might aim to have sex with groupies. At military academies, where noble behavior is essential, reward and punishment related to behavior and status are neurotically and systematically meted out. And if we ever have another D Day, there will be soldiers behind you with their guns loaded to ensure that your “selfless noble actions” are carried out. The rare exceptions, like that Russian mathematician, are visibly insane.
Or, what better look at noble actions than a ship crew during the Age of Sail? It just so happens that the crews which behaved most admirably were the ones that were rewarded more justly by their Admiral. Violation of the norms of the status hierarchy, which is a violation of the structure of reward, meant public flagellation or death. Doing a good job? More alcohol — a straight shot to the reward system. Not paying sailors? Suddenly there is no more nobility, we are pirates now. And when they are on land again, they expect a lot of respect from the public and especially women.
Because it’s bad for the community. Which is why, if an Andrew Tate existed in the Islamic World, he would not be bedding but beheaded. If he existed in the 19th century, he would go the way of Joseph Smith. I am interested in what is best for a community because that’s the fun game I play in my head when writing at places like themotte, and it’s a hobby I’ve had since a teen. Do I participate in it out of a desire to be superior to ideological competitors? Well, probably — I’m only human. To quote Pascal’s thoughts,
—
But I am in a game to deliver the best judgment. If I’m wrong, and someone judges better, then I lose the match. This game doesn’t occur everywhere. Try to deliver the best judgment to the girl at the bar who asks if you like her tattoo, or your friend who is deep into crypto. Quickly you will lose your reward. I think with the right organization of competition, you can maximize truth-seeking. Men have an instinctive drive for competition which is most obvious looking at online gaming.
Because this is how everyone behaves unless they are in an intense competition of discourse. Polemics are the backbone of truth-seeking. Could we ever come to scientific truth if we didn’t make scientists compete over accolades and positions? And even this isn’t enough, right? Just recently the President of Stanford was found to have fabricated his results from his scientist days. Cheating and replication crises abound. Because scientists only compete over truth insofar as that truth is rewarded. If your reward is feeling superior to scientists, you don’t have to rely on the peer review process.
I can give it a go. I 100% agree that some of those things are not terminal. I think what is terminal is novelty of instinctive pleasure, the vanity I mention above, and truly just sex. Sex with different beautiful women is surely a terminal reward. Being in a room with other men and sensing their respect and/or defeat is very likely an ingrained instinctual terminal reward, and maybe one day we’ll discover weird hormones that are released which affect our reward system (I’m sure of it). “Novel instinctive pleasure” means stuff like driving a really fast car; it’s interesting that even hamsters enjoy running on a wheel, and wild animals will play with swings and balls. This also allows us to make sense of addiction and how insanely terrifying it is, and how it can affect people of any social status. For an alcoholic, alcohol is just pure reward like sex and respect. It competes with the most primitive pleasures. Absurd anti-social risks are posed with alcohol and gambling because they are so damn primitive.
I don’t disagree here. Andrew Tate is clearly very intelligent and has great speaking skills. I would say that’s tangential to my main point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link