site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29051 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A thought experiment that is somewhat too large for the small scale questions thread.

Picture for a moment that a first world, rich, western nation decides to implement an open borders policy. Anyone who lives in a foreign nation can, at any time, apply for and receive permanent residency visa and be entitled to work and live in this country. There are no upper limits on the numbers of the people that may settle in the country using this method of entry.

However, there is one restriction. Only women and girls are permitted entry. Y chromosome owners are not permitted entry through this system and the fullest force of the law will be unleashed against any man who is found to be illegally within the country.

This approach should, theoretically, neutralise right wing arguments against open borders. These arguments either have an economic basis (a vast surfeit of labour will decrease pay and bargaining power for domestic workers) or a social basis (large amounts of unmarried, low skill men will cause unrest, violence and buggery). While the labour disruptions remain, a critical mass of unsettled women is unlikely to fuck shit up in the way that a critical mass of unsettled men are. Indeed, if we look to the current debate around migration in europe, there is an undercurrent of violence and hostility present in predominantly male migrants that wouldn't be the case if they were mostly female. The Ukranian migrants generated no such disruption because they were majority women and children.

Assume for the purposes of this argument that the male only border control is fullproof and has no workarounds. What are the effects of this open borders system? Are there any consequences I have not forseen?

My immediate objection is to the lopsided gender ratios that this would produce. As seen in China, lopsided gender ratios are not good demographics to have for a country.

Many insects have extremely shifted sex ratios in favor of females due to Wolbachia. And it looks like that it's more good for them than bad.

Wrong species.

Could you please state why?

...are you seriously asking this? I'm not an insect. If you want to claim some observation of insect behavior has even the slightest relevance to human society, the burden of proof's on you.

What kind of negative effects does the excess of women produce? Excess of men is thought to cause violence and unrest, but this mechanism doesn’t work with women, because they are not nearly as aggressive as men are.

One can observe post-Soviet republics to see the long-term consequences of rather lopsided sex ratios which stem from the carnage of World War Two and endure to this day, although to a more limited extent. To give an overall picture, according to the Soviet census of 1959, the female:male ratio in the 35-50-yrs-old cohort was a whopping 7:4. (I’ve read this in a study of war economics during WW2, I can dig up the source if you want to but right now I can’t be bothered.)

It goes without saying that this leaves an advantageous mating market for men in general, but this has wide-ranging repercussions of its own. In such an environment, the usual life paths of men become relatively easy to follow: you finish your studies and then find a relatively OK job without difficulty (after all, employable men are scarce), you’ll also find a wife of your liking easily unless you’re physically/mentally disabled or affected by some rare illness.

Life becomes a routine more or less, and pathological male behaviors such as drunkenness, sloth, gambling etc., which have dire consequences in a society with a normal sex ratio, have more limited penalties in yours. This will mean many men, especially midwits, basically letting themselves go and turning into alcoholic morons, sloths, bums. It’s not wonder that complaining about men being drunkards, cheaters, couch potatoes, bad fucks etc. is a favorite pastime of Slavic women. Of course, one reason many of their men behave in such ways is because even in that state, women are willing to fuck them, for the simple reasons described above.

Women are willing to fuck hot chad men and also actively prefer drunkards to teetotallers despite of what they complain. Alcohol usage didn't drop in post-Soviet republics as new cohorts emerged.

Agreed, but also women have lower libidos than men, so even if they were as aggressive, this wouldn't be as bad.

It results in polygamy.

...which is bad with 1:1 gender ratio because it creates sexless men who cause violence and unrest. How is is it bad with without sexless men?

It reduces paternal investment, for one thing.

And also number of children women has to be bear (for same population growth) also decreases, so I guess it's a tie.

It only leads to polygamy if women have to get married. If they don’t have to get married they may choose to stay single rather than get polygamously married.

Screwing up the dating market, for one. China has the opposite problem with vastly more men than women as a result of their former one-child policy, and that leads to a ton of men being unable to find a partner. Analogously, an excess of women would leave a ton of them unable to find a partner. Of course China has more demographic problems beyond that (namely having more old people than young) but you get the point.

Analogously, an excess of women would leave a ton of them unable to find a partner.

There's no symmetry here, though, because biologically, a woman can partner with an already-partnered man in a way that a man can't partner with an already-partnered woman. It's sure to cause problems, but I don't think screwing up the dating market is one of them.

Based off of lopsided ratios in some colleges it would lead to a lack of commited relationships and other downstream factors.

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