site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26752 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Obviously the uncharitable explanation is that gay men are all perverts, but that's not the sort of thing that, well actually I guess it could be a quality contribution if you put enough effort into it, but it usually isn't and I don't particularly want to do it.

One easy escape is to just say that most men are perverts, but straight men are usually checked by the preferences of women. I don't think that's a complete explanation, but I do think it's mostly true and goes quite a ways towards explaining many of the differences between gay, lesbian, and straight sexual behavior and promiscuity. When I consider how I would have behaved in my early 20s if I had a group of attractive women that were on the same page as me, yeah, it would probably be about how the typical gay guy spends their early 20s.

If you look at actual (past or present ) patriarchal societies they don't have the straight equivalent of gay pride parades. In fact public displays of sexuality are more taboo than they are in the West. So I don't think it's the preferences of women that are keeping men from allowing public orgies.

I might be the wrong audience here (not a big fan of the pride concept in general) but it seems to me the most pro pride people tend to be straight females…

Noticed this too and confuses me. Even if they normally would react to sexual aggressive/leering men with "thats creepy". Maybe they feel like a tourist viewing a pack of lions on a safe Safari?

Patriarchy doesn't mean "imposed by men on women" It means men take the role of leaders. Like most culture it's primarily transmitted from one generation to the next through women teaching their children. I think it's wrong to model it as maximizing what men want although that is basically how unsophisticated feminists use the term.

I think this is a misunderstanding of patriarchy- it's the dominance of specifically older men. Younger men do not typically benefit under a patriarchy; patriarchal men prefer the interests of their daughters to those of their potential sons-in-law when those diverge.

You can model patriarchy as a straight man-woman class conflict, but you'd just be wrong. It's patriarchy, not andrarchy. And indeed, a lot of the supposed "feminist victories against patriarchy" were actually driven by younger men smashing systems of patriarchal control intended to keep them from creating scandals with young women; the sexual revolution* in particular was more young men rebelling against their elders with women along for the ride than it was driven by women.

*I'm referring to the second one, if it isn't obvious, but I do think that you can make a coherent case for the first sexual revolution being driven by the desires of returning soldiers more than by early feminism.

It's patriarchy, not andrarchy.

Yep. I'd take straight up honest to goodness matriarchy where we are ruled by 60+ year old grandmas over the current status quo, and I personally wouldn't expect there to be any significant difference between a proper patriarchy or a proper matriarchy.

I think there's something to that but it's still not that women are the ones discouraging high male sex drives, in that case it would be older men reigning in younger men. Though really I think the dynamic is less old vs young it's more that men of all ages have an interest in stopping their female relatives from being pumped and dumped for a variety of reasons. Like if a young man became the patriarch of a family because his dad died young he's not going to let other men sleep with his unmarried female relatives just because he's young and also wants to sleep around.

On the one hand you could say that younger men are harmed by the patriarchy since they don't get to sleep around as much but on the other hand they don't have to worry that their bride has a high body count because her family wouldn't let that happen. It's mutually beneficial in the same way that speed limits are: it limits my freedom to drive at 120mph through a school zone but the upside is that neither can anybody else.

I think there's something to that but it's still not that women are the ones discouraging high male sex drives, in that case it would be older men reigning in younger men.

That's just women arranging for the older men to control young men on women's behalf. Women are still ultimately responsible for it.

Based on what? Women have quite a lot power today and they aren't using it to stop younger women from sleeping around.

Because of ideological blinders, though. It's not grannies that have that power; it's specifically credentialed feminists.

and they aren't using it to stop younger women from sleeping around

Active attempts to degrade the pool of people younger women would normally be sleeping with (through the standard attacks on young men) is still an attempt to stop this.

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