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 -
I am not who you're responding to, but I would probably rather sit in dull silence than read a book titled "Become the man women want." And I would expect to be mocked ruthlessly by my friends for doing so. Having said this, I admittedly have not read it and cannot comment on its contents.
If what you are doing to find relationships and sex has already worked out successfully to your satisfaction, then you are unlikely the intended audience who'd benefit from some Tucker and Dan.
If what you're doing is not working, entertain the notion that your impulses and assumptions when it comes to this area of life don't have a good track record and the solutions are likely to come from outside of your current comfort zone.
Without a doubt, every word of what you write is true according to my own experience. However I would suggest that "outside my comfort zone" takes many, many (probably for me more than most) forms. I would further suggest that in this particular circumstance, considering the issues at hand (namely, how to negotiate one's way through what can seem at times like an absolute maze built in a foggy quagmire known as "How to interact with women so that you can have some sort of sex life (but also adhere to some sort of moral standard)", then following some Procrustean rulebook to adhere to the Wants of Women is, perhaps counterintuitively, not the way to approach it. For an abundance of reasons, none of which I would argue have anything to do with misogyny or even lack of concern for women.
Mind you my issue is with Tucker 's title, which I think needs reworking. Maybe he means "the man women want viscerally without knowing why" as opposed to how I took it, which is "the man you think a woman feels is a good match." The former is doable within reason. The latter is a pathway to nowhere, and reminds me of those who deride what they call "toxic masculinity" and suggest a certain passive docility is what would heal us all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link