site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   27786 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 18, 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.

11
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Eh, I don't find this argument persuasive. I highly doubt the vast majority of supporters of the MeToo movement would be caught dead agreeing with any sort of 'sex negativity.' It's really about women wanting to have their cake and eat it to.

The way these sexual assault and rape proceedings are going, we are hurtling towards a world where young women get to become intoxicated at parties and fuck around as much as they want. But then if a man they slept with (or presumably could've slept with) ever does something they don't like, they can bring the full force of the law against them. Even 20 years later.

Yes conservative courting norms and laws were created to prevent this exact thing, but I'm not sure most mainstream progressives are able to think of anything labeled 'conservative' in a positive light. It's quite strange but the modern media landscape really has made a world where people see a group labeled 'enemy' enough times and they get to a point where they just literally cannot fathom that that group has anything beneficial going on.

The point is that MeToo represents an organic rebellion by a lot of women against the excesses of the sexual revolution, whether they consciously realise it or not (and most, as you suggest, do not). Is it often misguided, does it often harm innocents, does it broadly fail to present viable alternatives, is it still trapped inside liberal ideology? Of course - it represents a dynamic rage, it is largely impotent, those supporting it have little understanding of the real material causes of their suffering.

But, as @iprayiam3 says, that does not mean it is insincere. And so-called conservatives who spend their time defending lotharios and cads are essentially liberals on this issue, no different to those defending ‘drag queen story hour’ or teenage transition. No, some things are bad. Young women raised in a climate of total sexual liberalism are rebelling with the only words they have, in the only way they can. They’re not going to become “trad” overnight, they have no understanding of what that is, they were raised without religion, they are surrounded by a media environment that means they don’t have any real understanding of what reversing it would mean. Still, they know the present situation is untenable.

They’re not going to become “trad” overnight, they have no understanding of what that is, they were raised without religion, they are surrounded by a media environment that means they don’t have any real understanding of what reversing it would mean.

Just how deep does that lack of understanding run? Do these women actually still not realize that trying to outdo one another in pandering to the short-term sexual proclivities of the top 5% of men will never get them the one thing they really crave, which is the attention and devotion of a worthy man?

Hah, I continue to find it fascinating how so many folks in the Motte/rationalist sphere underestimate the intelligence of the average person, or hell even the above average person.

The people that are capable of having conversations like these on sensitive topics without foaming at the mouth rabidly are a few percentage points, at most.

Lord, selection effects are terrifyingly powerful things.

which is the attention and devotion of a worthy man?

They can't get what they want by any means, because there aren't nearly enough "worthy" men by their own standards. Feminists will of course argue this is due to the degeneracy of men, but since this isn't the case, winning that argument doesn't gain them anything.

There aren't nearly enough worthy women either. I'd say the mating marketplace is in balance in that sense.

You don't think men have degenerated? Why not?

You see the cohorts of NEETs and don't think that means degeneration? I'm surprised at this coming from you Nybbler.

There aren't that many NEETs, they're just horrendously overrepresented on places like Reddit. They used to just commit minor crimes and/or hang out somewhere and smoke weed.

Interesting. I know several in my personal life. I don't know the stats off the top of my head, but it seems to me that the modal young man in America is far less outgoing and just generally capable than in the last few generations.

I hate to jump into an old convo thread, but:

While I probably wouldn't dispute the prevalence of NEETs like Nybbler does, I think the real question of "have men degenerated" is often asked more in terms of whether the degeneration comes from the men themselves, or from the society around them.

Have you met people of average intelligence, let alone the half who fall below the midpoint? The people we most often make fun of here are midwits already in the 90th+ percentile. Expecting average people, especially average young people, to accurately diagnose the complexities of the sexual marketplace is overambitious. They may be aware of their place relative to others, but their collective role in the machine isn’t going to be derived by the average 17 year old.

And in any case, there’s a defection issue here. The average 18 year old boy in modern secular France (for example) isn’t going to wait until marriage to have sex. A girl his age has no power over him, if she tells him she wants to wait, he’ll go fuck someone else who has not fully considered the reality of gender relations and concluded that promiscuity is counterproductive for women. She is left with two choices if she commits to this path. First, she could become a tradcath (or maybe Muslim), which presumably as say a secular Parisian (maybe not even of Catholic background) would involve abandoning the culture in which she was raised and wholesale LARPing to join a completely different largely rural subculture and belief system that will be suspicious of a young single person without a family history in the SSPX or whatever. Secondly, she could find a secular French boy so romantically unsuccessful or unconfident that he is willing to agree to the terms despite living in a promiscuous society. Of course, that young man is likely so shy that he’ll never even make a move, and may otherwise be extremely awkward, stunted or ugly (by which I don’t mean “not the top 5%”, but “in the bottom 10%”).

So in reality, the girl usually has to put out if she wants a relationship [that may lead to marriage] with an average young man in her league of class/education/looks.

I appreciate you always giving a rigorous defense of women when these sexual marketplace topics get brought up. I may not always agree, but it's a needed service! I rarely see these arguments being made anywhere, unfortunately.

Don't you think the argument that the average 18-yr-old girl in modern secular France has no power over the average boy his age is so obviously far-fetched that it basically belongs to fantasy land?

I'd say @2rafa was arguing that she doesn't have power over the situation. Yes a girl has some power over the average boy, but not enough power to get him to commit to her if she won't put out.

Not enough power to do that, yes, I agree. But this entire conversation, and the one before this, about Russell Brand, was about the perils of women engaging in hookup sex. I'd argue that young women engaging in premarital sex in monogamous relationships is not a product of the sexual revolution, but was more or less the social norm before that as well. As far as I know, research proves that even roughly half of the Puritans had premarital sex this way, for example.

Interesting, I haven't heard that before about premarital sex. Would be grateful if you had something to read on that.

More comments

I mean, yes, within the narrow window of said average girl asking said average boy to not have sex. All the power such a girl has over such a boy is because she gatekeeps sex. He'll move heaven and earth if he thinks he has a shot. If the singular ask of that girl is to not do the one thing he'll do anything to do... yeah, she has no power over that.

The average 18 year old boy in modern secular France (for example) isn’t going to wait until marriage to have sex.

So in reality, the girl usually has to put out if she wants a relationship [that may lead to marriage]

Hold up. These are completely different scenarios. Why did you just move the goalposts?

I’m saying that defection from modern sexual culture isn’t a viable solution for most young women in the West even if they thought of it, which they probably wouldn’t. How is that not relevant?

Do these women actually still not realize that trying to outdo one another in pandering to the short-term sexual proclivities of the top 5% of men will never get them the one thing they really crave, which is the attention and devotion of a worthy man?

They’re not pandering to the “top 5%” but to the average young man their age, who grew up in the same post-sexual-revolution culture and so is not usually going to accept a single young woman telling him to wait for her.

Again, hold up.

  1. You and @iprayiam3 are specifically discussing the reactions of women supposedly used and abused by Danny Masterson and Russell Brand and, I presume, similar male celebrities and lotharios, i.e. the top 5% of men, not by average young man their age. You're claiming this is the understandable and sincere female reaction to the undesired consequences of the sexual revolution.

  2. In your comment above, you seem to be implying that a modern Western woman putting out in the framework of a long-term relationship on the path to marriage is somehow also an example of promiscuity. I think even on this forum most people would find that interpretation highly dubious.

The way I understand 2rafa's argument is that a woman that craves "normal" and traditional monogamous relationship is in a trap. In the modern environment she has to go out and risk getting burned by some sexual predator who will take advantage of her. A logical thing to do in such an environment may be to lash out utilizing available tools such as #MeeToo.

Some time ago there was an article here on The Mote by someone who pointed out to exactly this phenomenon using some Indian word. The phenomenon being demonstrated by an image of car cut in half used as a horse carriage complete with rubber wheels. It was too heavy and not suitable as a horse cart, but the new technology of car was successful enough to completely wipe out institutional knowledge of how to build a good horse carriage. So when a crisis came and fuel became too expensive so cars were not viable anymore, people used the tools available to them to put something together which was subpar to what was there before.

The example here is sexual behaviour where 2023, one such example is infamous sex consent app where people will be required to agree to a contract prior to having sex. If only there was an institutions where two people swore before witnesses that they are now in a relationship - including sexual one - voluntary and in full knowledge of consequences. So we will solve the situation surrounding sex and relationships with an app, because this is year 2023 and old things like marriage is no longer viable social technology anymore.

Nuance is warranted either way. The notion that the options of the modern Western single woman are a) have monkey sex with the likes of Russell Brand b) demand abstinence before marriage is preposterous. After all, we know that the average woman is capable of eliciting long-term commitment from men, because this has been happening since the dawn of time, in all societies.

More comments

Some time ago there was an article here on The Mote by someone who pointed out to exactly this phenomenon using some Indian word.

Jugaad Ethics is the article you're referring to.

More comments

I think even on this forum most people would find that interpretation highly dubious.

Stop with the consensus building.

I think the point you're missing here is that 2rafa isn't arguing this is a rational, logical, well thought out strategy by these young women. She's trying to give you an idea of why, from a hidden incentives standpoint, young western women are pushed to act in these ways.

The idea that a young woman who has premarital sex in the context of a long-term monogamous relationship is promiscuous and thus participates in the sexual revolution is, I think, something only hardliner religious fundamentalists believe; certainly not the majority in any Western society, or on this board. I'd say that's just a fairly credible observation.

Is it often misguided, does it often harm innocents, does it broadly fail to present viable alternatives, is it still trapped inside liberal ideology? Of course - it represents a dynamic rage, it is largely impotent, those supporting it have little understanding of the real material causes of their suffering.

I can agree with this point, that broadly the MeToo movement exists due to sexual excesses of the sexual revolution. I can even agree that it's due to rage. But I still find it extremely troubling. I suppose it depends on where you see society heading due to the current proceedings.

But, as @iprayiam3 says, that does not mean it is insincere. And so-called conservatives who spend their time defending lotharios and cads are essentially liberals on this issue, no different to those defending ‘drag queen story hour’ or teenage transition.

I absolutely disagree with this characterization. It has long been a staple of archetypal stories that heroic men with high status can sleep around with pretty much whoever they want, get applauded for it, and fail to have any consequences. It was even common in Christian societies, although the Catholics did tend to have a dimmer view of lotharios. They were anomalous in quite a few respects. (Nowadays they've lost their distinctness because their peculiar outlook has become the mainstream view, imo)

Now I still think that heroes sleeping around with virgins all across society can be bad, unless you have very few heroes who unambiguously do good things. These frail half-men 'pseuds' we have nowadays that have usurped the place and status the hero used to occupy are far from any sort of moral ideal, however.

If a man truly does beat back the chaotic flood, saves society, and pushes us forward into a golden age - he can sleep around as much as he wants, as far as I'm concerned. If Elon Musk wants to sow his wild oats, well, I don't see much wrong with that.

But the Russell Brands of the world are one of the most telling signs that the way our society doles out status is sick. Absolutely rotten.

If a man truly does beat back the chaotic flood, saves society, and pushes us forward into a golden age - he can sleep around as much as he wants, as far as I'm concerned

With your daughter?

…Yes? Perhaps I’d feel different if I actually had a daughter and had watched her grow up, but this doesn’t feel like that big of a dilemma. If you don’t want Elon Musk solving the fertility crisis with your daughter, then you don’t want to win. Your reproductive fitness incentives are aligned with hers.

Now, with my wife/gf? Absolutely not. He can get fucked

I don’t think the opposition in this hypothetical case is to Elon Musk being your son in law and father of your grandchild(ren), it’s to Elon Musk using your daughter as a whore, which is what @TheDag seemed to imply was acceptable to him.

I'll preface this with the fact that I don't have any children either. I'm sure that would affect things.

That being said, from an objective standpoint I think that I could stomach a suitable hero (i.e. Elon Musk) coupling with my daughter if the right story were told about it. If he launched the first rocket into orbit that prevented his company from bankruptcy, and my daughter was at the afterparty, and one thing led to another, et cetera...

This poor rendition of a hero's journey highlights the problem we have in modern times. Even the most credulous and serious depiction of a hero's journey struggles to recapture the gravitas of a story told over a campfire many nights between a group of individuals that have known each other most of their lives. We humans were built to tell stories around campfires, that's where so much of our modern culture evolved from.

Clearly with the pace of modern times, we can't create stories with the same weight, or at least we haven't figured out the trick yet.

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