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 -
A couple weeks ago I had an argument with people on here about the Sexual Revolution, and its terrible effects on society, or lack thereof. Just about everyone except me was in agreement that the SR was a bad thing.
My thoughts and responses to objections were scattered throughout the thread, so I decided to collect them and make a brief and incomplete case as to why the SR, and the social revolution of the 60s in general was not a bad thing, and most of its purported deleterious impacts are overstated, wrongly attributed, or nonexistent.
Did the social revolution of the 60s make everybody unhappy and miserable?
Straightforwardly, yes. American self-reported happiness rates have been on a fairly steady decline since the 70s. With regards to women in particular, there is a phenomenon referred to as the ‘paradox of declining female happiness’, the observation that even as women have attained greater legal rights and generally been raised in status relative to men, their self-reported happiness has declined. This is often used by social conservatives to argue that women were happier as wives and mothers and that forcing them out of their ‘natural’ roles and into competition with men was a mistake.
I am generally skeptical about self-reported happiness, because it’s not clear if measurement invariance holds over time. Does the question “are you happy?” mean the same thing to someone in 2020 as it does in 1970, let alone 1900?
But suicide rates have also been rising in the US for a long time, so it’s fair to say people becoming unhappier is a real phenomenon. The trend is actually worst among young-ish adults. Here’s a tweet from middling right-wing e-celeb Indian Bronson blaming this trend on the usual right-wing bogeymen.
The problem with the “everyone is depressed and killing themselves because we aren’t based and trad anymore” story is that it doesn’t hold internationally.
It’s pretty undeniable that Western Europe underwent the same social revolution as the US. On many metrics like irreligion, illegitimacy, and rates of people identifying as LGBT, what a social conservative would probably call ‘the decay’ is actually significantly more advanced than it is in the US.
Yet over the past several decades in Europe, self-reported happiness has tended to either hold steady, or increase.
Suicide rates back this up. Over the same time period that suicide rates have spiked among Americans, especially American youth, they’ve declined in western Europe
It seems that everybody being atomized gay atheists hasn’t made Europeans more depressed or suicidal.
What about the dreaded epidemic of single motherhood? Well, as noted above, multiple European countries have single-parenthood rates (and as in the US, the vast majority being single mothers) equivalent or greater than those of the US, without the associated social dysfunction.
There’s not as much research as one would like, but from what I have found, the children of widowed mothers do not tend to differ much on outcomes from the children of biological, two-parent households, so “growing up without a father” doesn’t seem to be that important net of other factors.
What about the supposedly meteor-tier impact on the ‘sexual marketplace’? This is honestly worthy of its own post, but the short answer. Is, no, the idea that the upper 20% (or 10% or 5% or 1% depending on how blackpilled your interlocutor is) of Chads hoarding all the woman while ordinary guys starve is very thinly supported on the ground.
Last year a headline proclaiming “most young men are single. Most young women are not.” went viral. Specifically, GSS data showed that 63% of young men reported themselves as single while only 34% of young women did. This was of course immediately seized upon as proof that a huge proportion of girls are in “chad harems.” Since nobody bothers to read beyond a sensationalist headline, not many dug deep enough to discover that this proportion has been roughly the same for over thirty years, so if the chadopoly is real, it’s been going on for a long time.
As for the “divorce rape” the manosphere has spent the last fifteen years insisting is endemic under our gynocracy, only 10% of divorces actually result in any actual alimony paid.
I add this cautiously, because it’s the only study I could find to treat the question, and it’s about the UK, and it’s about twenty years old, but there is at least some evidence that men actually end up richer long term post-divorce. Which makes intuitive sense to me. Most men are breadwinners, so naturally when you don’t have to support a whole other human being, you’re going to have more disposable income on hand.
If you’re a conservative, then you think single motherhood, divorce, people being gay, and promiscuity, are bad in and of themselves, so from a conservative perspective, the social revolution of the 60s was tautologically a bad thing since that revolution was explicitly an anti-conservative one. But that is not likely to convince anyone who is not already a conservative.
When I have this argument elsewhere someone always hits me with “oh so you think everything is great, huh? You think this degenerate feminist deracinated hellscape we inhabit is a paradise, don’t you?” People on here are not generally that abrasive but anyway, no, I don’t, I think there are plenty of problems in the world. but I also don’t think there’s much evidence for “everything would be better if we RETVRNED” thesis.
This is all besides the fact that I don't think it's POSSIBLE to retvrn because I think the massive social changes of the past two centuries are down less to the Frankfurt School indoctrinating everyone with Cultural Marxism and more to the seismic shifts in the actual underlying material basis of society, which could not be undone short of some kind of totalitarian anti-technological world dictatorship (which of course would have to make significant use of modern technology to impose itself) enforcing the law of Ted Kaczynski upon the earth, but that is another story and I am tired of writing.
The overall highly online right's position on these issues is somewhat incoherent. I understand of course that the highly online right is made up of many people, so a degree of incoherence is inevitable. It is hard enough for even one person's political opinions to be coherent. Yet I think it might be interesting to examine some of the contradictions anyway.
First
The highly online right-wingers maintain that women were happier before the sexual revolution and that this counts as a mark against the sexual revolution. Yet they would not judge many other social phenomena mainly based on whether those had increased happiness. These are the same kind of people who like to glorify war, struggle, endurance in the face of opposition, maturity, a cool-headed and objective look at reality, providing for the tribe, and other such stereotypically "adult man" things.
Now, when a boy grows up and stops believing in Santa Claus, and then has to go make his own living, the boy might become less happy as a result. But none of these highly online right-wingers would argue that becoming a man is a bad thing because men are less happy than boys. They understand that becoming an adult man should be judged by other things in addition to just whether it makes a person happy. Yet they are not willing to look at the sexual revolution in the same light.
Ok, so maybe (if the phenomenon of decreased happiness is even real, which as To_Mandalay points out it might not be) women are less happy after the sexual revolution. Can't this just be explained by the fact that after the sexual revolution, women have more responsibilities, are much more present in the workplace, and have to navigate a more complex sexual landscape than before? But if a boy becoming less happy when he turns into a man is not necessarily entirely a bad thing, then why would a woman becoming less happy when she goes into the workplace be entirely a bad thing that needs to be reversed? For the boy and the trad woman alike, the increased responsibilities and stresses are one price of the greatly increased power and freedom that they come into once they become men and modern women, respectively.
Second
The highly online right-wingers tend to glorify evolution and eugenics. They delight in poring over genetic anthropology theories, presenting HBD arguments, and using genetics to explain why some groups of people are more successful than others. In light of this, the idea that there is something bad about 20% of men sleeping with 80% of the women seems a bit contradictory. Isn't that just evolution in action?
"Ah", some might argue, "but it is not eugenic or good for society for women to sleep with bad boy rappers and violent criminals. That is not the kind of eugenics I favor!". Sure, I understand that point of view. But then you are not saying that there is anything eugenically bad in principle about 80% of men going relatively sexless, you just disagree about which kind of 20% men the women should be picking.
In any case, the idea that there is something bad about most men going mostly sexless sits in unhappy contradiction with the highly online right-winger's typical tendency to glorify evolution, power, and success. As usual, the highly online right is split between a craving for socialism (sexual in this case, economic in other cases) on the one hand and a glorification of power, strength, and individual success on the other.
You minsunderstand the point of eugenics. It's not to promote what is most evolutionary advantagious. That requires no action and no ideology. The point to improve the next generation in acordance to out values. That generally means we want them to be healthier, happier, selfless, and more intelligent. That is why people didn't want poor (which are generally lower IQ), or criminals to have children, and is the reason for the Nobel sperm bank.
That said, ofc people use this kind of thing to argue their own genes and children are great. People are universally biased towards themselves. That applies for both eugenics and intersectionality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link