site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 2024

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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Society vs Male Radicalisation II - Male Role Models/Surely This Time Our Plan Will Work

I was on the internet this week, and I found this:

Labour to help schools develop male influencers to combat Tate misogyny

It is interesting to note that there is an increasing shift towards talking about "role models" for young men and boys as a means of cooling the gender kerfuffle, rather than by repeating feminist talking points at males until they concede as was the case when I was a teenager. The Labour Party, the UK's apparent next government, has come up with policy to reduce the influence of Andrew Tate among schoolboys with the intended aim of safeguarding women and girls. It means to do this by creating counter role models to whom boys can look up to. This would not even the utterly embarrasing 30 year old boomers trying to guess what resonates with children, but would consist instead of older volunteer boys taken from within the same school. This if it is implemented, will have educators select the real life version of Will from Inbetweeners as its senior male role model and think themselves of sound mind for doing so. You are only ever going to get uncool loser types volunteering, and it is the fear of becoming an uncool loser (or worse) that motivates young men to go and consume manosphere content.

Feminism's defenders will counter that there are many existing role models available for men, often listing real or fictional people like Ryan Gosling, Marcus Rashford or Ted Lasso. These men are either fake or literal one percenters whose lifestyle an average young man has no hope of to attaining. This betrays a complete lack of understanding about why men choose the role models they do and how they attempt to emulate them. These role models are deliberately or implicitly chosen as role models for young men by people who aren't young men often because they display qualities that are useful, rather than valued, to society. This is because almost all policy dreamt up by institutions concerning Men and Boys is not to their benefit, but instead to neuter a perceived threat against Women, Girls and the wider society. For every Marcus Rashford, there are multiple Mason Greenwoods or Kurt Zoumas who continue to receive all the signifiers of male success and receive no punishment for any of their transgressions.

It is clear that what educational and social institutions want are meek, inoffensive and productive men who do not question the rules of society. This is in direct contrast to what young men want, which is to be outspoken, to be popular with women, to be socially and economically successful. No role model ever produced or selected by the state could manage this, particularly not when operating under the notion that it must maintain women's liberation, which itself requires the stifling of men. I question for how much longer this approach will be kept in place. There are hundreds of people like Andrew Tate across SM, each ready to teach boys what society is unable to teach them. Educators can more easily dispel Tate because of the sex trafficking offences and because Tate himself is a clown, but people like Hamza, whose lived experience is much closer to the boys he is trying to proselytize to than that of Tate's, they have no counterargument.

It is interesting to note that there is an increasing shift towards talking about "role models" for young men and boys as a means of cooling the gender kerfuffle, rather than by repeating feminist talking points at males until they concede as was the case when I was a teenager.

There's been a fair amount of discourse in lefty spaces over the last 2-4 years about how feminist/progressive ideology is good at telling men what things to stop doing but bad at teaching boys what they should do instead, leaving a lot of young men who want to be progressive without a reliable script to follow. Presenting and promoting role models is the solution, that project is very much in early days and not going to be very good at first, but in the long term it's the only way to stabilize a new normal.

These men are either fake or literal one percenters whose lifestyle an average young man has no hope of to attaining.

I mean if you ask anyone to name some role models off the top of their head, those people are going to be very famous and therefore almost-by-necessity rich or fake, almost by definition. A non-famous role model isn't necessarily a contradiction in terms, but it wouldn't be the first example most people think of. And it's hard to be famous in a positive way without being rich or fake these days.

But there are plenty of viable non-famous candidates that the community is growing and embracing on its own in the normal, market-driven, organic way. Just like I've never heard of Hamza, I'm guessing you've never heard of FD Signifier, but he's an example of an organically-grown explicitly leftist microceleb who can serve as a good role model for young black men. And of course there are plenty of creators who aren't explicitly politically aligned but exhibit the virtues of non-problematic masculinity and are popular with younger boys, like Markiplier or SuperEyepatchWolf or etc.

There's been a fair amount of discourse in lefty spaces over the last 2-4 years about how feminist/progressive ideology is good at telling men what things to stop doing but bad at teaching boys what they should do instead, leaving a lot of young men who want to be progressive without a reliable script to follow.

There's never been a shortage of demands on men from any direction.

The first gender ideology that finds a way to offer men not just a list of demands, but attach an actual stake in their society to it will win young men.

Modern right-wingers don't do this either. You can see this most clearly whenever someone criticizes the current marriage regime. The insistence is that sure it has problems, but you need to just stop asking questions and do it anyway. This often doesn't even come with a promise that it will ever get better. The fact it's a bad deal doesn't matter, as a man you don't have a stake in the family unit. You're there to serve it, that's it. Three P's: protection, provision, procreation. Stake ain't a P-word.

I think part of the reason JBP became so popular is that it kinda sounded like he was proposing a vision of masculinity that offered some kind of stake. This turned out to be wrong, but some men understandably but erroneously assumed that all of this talk of bearing the load would come with a stake attached. It didn't.

name some role models off the top of their head, those people are going to be very famous

Those are figures, not roles. A role per the examples offered would be actor, footballer, and whatever Ted Lasso is. You can't play the role of being Marcus Rashford, but you can play the role of being a footballer and associate other pro-social behaviours like fair play, fitness, practice and respecting the rules with that role.

Influencer is a shitty role because the common behaviours are a blend of populism and commercialism by the nature of the business. Good editing and production skills aren't the basis for a society.

a lot of young men who want to be progressive without a reliable script to follow

The difficulty progressives have with promoting more general role models (train driver, doctor, policeman(!)) is the ""problematic"" nature of lauding people who work hard and take responsibility. It's too close to the small c conservative script of studying hard, working hard, following the rules, saving your money, having kids and raising them right.

The progressive role models are often more akin to radical activists of one stripe or another who rebelled against what society told them they should do... ironically like Andrew Tate.

It's like it's not enough for a plain old teacher to instill good study habits, they have to instill Critical Theories too. Just look at the flack Katharine Burbalsingh catches for being a non-white woman who opens a school in a deprived area and turns it into an academic success story through presenting high expectations for her students, or hardship afflicted single mother and feminist turned squillionaire children's author JK Rowling. In progressive's eyes Marcus Rashford isn't popular for his personal success, he's popular because he scored one for team social justice against the Conservative government. Stormzy raps about spunking on your girlfriend's face after going church but he also dropped that angry outburst for the social justice crew dem about Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May. Those are the roles they're promoting.

If you are cis-gendered male, I'm curious if you feel that you had any good male progressive role models growing up. Even non-famous ones like a teacher or family friend.

I wasn't really looking for potential progressive male role models growing up, but no examples comes to mind. Hard left economic male role models, a few. Libertarian male role models, many. Republican male role models, countless.

I'm still mentally stuck in thinking what such a progressive male model is supposed to look like, even if we are talking about purely fictional characters. Unironically "PC Principle" from south park comes to mind. Many actual male progressive heroes that I can think of are gay or a minority, which isn't going to work for most of the white male population.

If you are cis-gendered male, I'm curious if you feel that you had any good male progressive role models growing up. Even non-famous ones like a teacher or family friend.

There is no shortage of men with progressive political views who possess the classical masculine virtues, and are therefore appropriate role models for young men. As an existence proof, we can look at male leaders in progressive politics. If you look at Barack Obama's engagement with his faith, family, community and career, it is obvious that he is good at being a man. Unless you think progressive politics is per se wicked, he also appears to be a good man. The same is broadly true of Joe Biden (he may be old, but he isn't effeminate), Justin Trudeau, Keir Starmer etc. Pajamaboy didn't become a meme because all left-wing "men" are like that - he became a meme because Team Obama chose to make Pajamaboy the public face of a campaign. If they had shown Obama (or most of his male cabinet members) lounging on a couch in pajamas, he would have looked louche rather than soyjack.

Given the political demographics of the community I grew up in, I can assume that almost all the older boys and young men I looked up to as a teenager were either Lib Dems or centrist Tories who would go on to back Remain. There were the usual number of men who met the requirements of a good role model.

So why do we say there are no good male progressive role models? There are multiple reasons, but in my view the most important is that the status-conferring institutions that boys and young men use to determine who is good at being a man are not working in the way society wants them to. There are environments (particularly if you are a black American teenage boy) where there are no available role models who are both good men and good at being men, but most of the young men who are looking up to Andrew Tate (or other bad men) have chosen him as a role model over good men because they think he is much, much better at being a man.

How did that happen? There are bottom-up and top-down factors. The main bottom-up ones are:

  • Mass media now treats outlawry as high-status, not low-status. This was a left-wing thing for most of the back half of the 20th century, but is increasingly a right-wing thing too. In a sane world, getting arrested would have done a number on Andrew Tate's social status and his continuing male fan-base would be the butt of jokes about their idol being some gypsy's prison bitch - even among Red Tribers. In the world we live in, he is seen as a brave rebel Fighting the Power.
  • The life script among Blue Tribe members and PMC Red Tribe members is that you shouldn't be on the relationship escalator until you have completed your education. This changes the way girls function as a status signal. Back in the day, having an 8 from a good family making puppy-dog eyes at you and telling her girlfriends she wanted your ring was higher status than banging half a dozen slutty 6 goth-girls in the back of a beaten-up Ford Focus. In a time when getting engaged as an undergraduate is slightly weird and creepy, the opposite is true.

But the easiest thing to fix is the top-down issue. The top-down status-conferring mechanisms in progressive spaces are not conferring the status on good men which would make them good role models. And the reason for that is that it is that said institutions are using all their authority to praise women who display the classical masculine virtues for reasons which are good and sufficient if you are a feminist. When the physics textbooks portray Albert Einstein and Marie Curie as the two greatest physicists of the 20th century, they are stealing Richard Feynman's rightful status as number 2. The same thing happens on a smaller scale with girls in STEM, girls' sports, girl leaders etc.

I can think of a lot of progressive musicians or artists who I admired but none of them seemed like they had a life I could ever achieve. Or necessarily ones I'd want to achieve. So, probably not fair to say they're role models. At least for me.

I do wonder if progressives think these role models are actually a lot more legitimate because they could imagine themselves getting great at guitar and being world famous musicians and touching people through beautiful music or whatever. Whereas those conservative role models are such conformist boring trad-squares.

EDIT: actually, Anthony Bourdain. I'm sure a lot of progressives consider him a role model, though in the wake of his suicide all of his romantic world-spanning zeal seems like a desperate cry for help slash running from his demons or whatever.

EDIT2: thinking further, I'm really amazed by what a perfect progressive role model Anthony Bourdain is. Holy shit.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on Anthony Bourdain, you've got me curious.

I should make this a top-post. But for now: Anthony Bourdain. Humble beginnings doing "real" work as a cook and a chef at a string of New York City restaurants. Has a passion for French cuisine. Then struck out as a writer who published Kitchen Confidential, sharing this quaint but authentic view of a working class life with the world. All of these honorable professions go far among progressives. They are relatable, humble, involve zero obvious exploitation. True honest work.

I've seen this quote of his pop up at various art festivals:

“Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”

From humble beginnings, he was signed to do two travel shows, No Reservations and then Parts Unknown, glorfying open-minded exploration and celebration of other cultures: their food, their traditions, their people, etc. Super romantic while still keeping an edgy down-to-Earth quality. Alludes to having lived a life of mild depravity but in a cute way. Seems like he could come up with an amazing wine pairing with seared sea scallops but you can also have a beer with him and shoot the shit. The worst thing you could ever do is suggest going to McDonalds.

He cannot possibly be a better progressive role model. He even struggled from mental illness! Showing that even hard working, successful and productive people who seem happy on the outside can suffer from depression and bring themselves to suicide.

Mild tangent: I can't shake the feeling that his romanticism, attempts at authenticity, never losing his edgy side belied a somewhat destructive live fast die young ethos and may have all been a big cry for help but progressives I've discussed this with don't believe there's any connection between the two at all whatsoever. He just caught mental illness the way anyone can catch flu.

I'm still mentally stuck in thinking what such a progressive male model is supposed to look like, even if we are talking about purely fictional characters.

A conservative male role model with progressive political and social views :V

I'm only being slightly facetious. I think you can point out some culturally-specific differences on the margin (e.g. conservatives are more likely to idealize aggression and embrace sharp gender divisions in interests, progressives are more likely to praise emotional openness and lean away from idea of a man as protector/provider), but I would posit that (at least in the American context) the behavioral ideal of manhood isn't that far apart. And even some apparent political splits are more subcultural than partisan (e.g. compare and contrast Mormon and Southern masculinity)

quoth @dr_analog on conservative* role models

  • happy embracing fatherhood
  • devoted/providing husband
  • works hard
  • successful at work
  • proud of work

We could strike the word "providing" and have a list that is agreeable in practice to most progressives. Their bigger issue is a more generalized discomfort with openly articulating an ideal of manhood for fear of harming both women and not-traditionally-masculine men, so instead most of these go unstated and you have to infer them.

*normiecon rather than redpill con

quoth @dr_analog on conservative* role models

happy embracing fatherhood devoted/providing husband works hard successful at work proud of work

I'd add brave and principled. One of the organic male figures, developed in living memory, is Rocky Balboa, who appeals to lots of different Americans, but who perhaps fits best with normie conservative ideology. He's brave (willing to e.g. risk losing his eyesight or his life to provide for his family/get revenge) and principled (plays by the rules, tries to live up to standards of masculinity etc.).

I mean, I grew up before 'progressive' was a commonly-used political term. My dad was certainly a good feminist role model, I guess that would be the analogy from the time period, and we had several family friends who also would have served.

But I mean, like, Mr Rogers? Bob Ross? David Bowie? Steve Irwin? None of these people are, like, explicitly virulently feminist, they're just normal men who don't exhibit most of the 'toxic masculinity' traits that the left finds fault with on some male role models.

That's really all we're asking for here, I think, role models who demonstrate a successful life and way of interacting with the world that doesn't rely on those 'toxic' behaviors and traits.

I think the idea of 'explicitly politically-motivated role models' is a dead end here. A role model that progressives can embrace is not the same as a loudly progressive role model.

Mr Rogers was quietly Republican.

Bob Ross was a womanizer. David Bowie had sexual relations with 15 year olds during his stardom. They kind of strike me as part of the 70s era sexual liberation generation. And there are plenty of male "role models" from that generation. I just feel that after the MeToo movement that these types of men would be examples of "toxic masculinity".

I didn't want to look too deeply into Steve Irwin, but he mostly wrastled large reptiles into submission in his public appearances. I'll grant him as maybe a good environmentalist role model. Not quite sure how that translates as a role model for human interaction.


I think the idea of 'explicitly politically-motivated role models' is a dead end here. A role model that progressives can embrace is not the same as a loudly progressive role model.

I think it's a dead end for modern progressives hoping for straight white male role models. I think it generally is not a dead end for just about any other situation.

I didn't want to look too deeply into Steve Irwin, but he mostly wrastled large reptiles into submission in his public appearances

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/crikey-praise-for-pm-puts-you-in-a-snake-pit-20031109-gdhqvg.html

Praised a conservative PM who campaigned on stopping illegal immigration as the greatest PM the country ever had - he was a conservative, so he's actually another example of "toxic" masculinity.

This is like the uno reverse card of that male feminist meme where you name a male feminist and it turns out they have accusations of sexual impropriety in the closet. Apparently "name a successful male role model with a happy home life" nets you either conservatives or, occasionally, actors who just follow the Holywood culture.

Maybe we should talk about woke executives? Is Bob Iger happily married?

Maybe we should talk about woke executives? Is Bob Iger happily married?

Once divorced, married to his second wife since 1995, two children from each marriage.

By all accounts Steve Irwin was a devoted family man who really loved and was very good at his extremely dangerous career, who had outspoken environmental views.

I think we should probably give him that one.

I never noticed this but all the ones I can think of, and there are quite a few, all seem to fall into the hard left. What few now qualify as Progressives fell into it and were disgraced by it in my eyes but were only admirable insofar as they were, well, revolutionary class reductionists.

feminist/progressive ideology is good at telling men what things to stop doing

I'd argue that it actually isn't.

Would like to hear more, at least the framing that you're interpreting that into.

They certainly do a lot of telling. Not sure if you mean they're bad at getting men to listen, or point out the wrong things, or are too vague, or what.

I definitely think they're bad at getting men to listen, yes. I wouldn't say they're pointing out the wrong things per se, but that's not the main problem. It's that their messaging never reaches the men it's supposed to reach, and it's reaching only men who don't need their advice anyway.

And conservative communities have little difficulty producing positive role models for boys. Which seems like an obvious drawback- leftist communities need to astroturf someone into a role that is already filled elsewhere.

Leftists want to change society and select for people interested in that. It's thus harder to depend on existing role models.

... They have a lot of difficulty producing positive role models for boys, from the perspective of progressives.

A disagreement about what traits are 'positive' is the entire crux of the issue, here.

Yes, conservatives have had more time to put their systems in pace than progressives, that's pretty much definitional to the words 'conservative' and 'progressive'.

It's always the case that progressives are trying something new, and you can always walk in on that first-draft process and point out mistakes and absurdities, and feel superior.

Lets check back in 30 years to see how it went.

Feminism and social progressivism has been mainstream for more than 30 years, no? Seems like they should’ve figured it out by now if it’s a solvable problem.

I think it isn’t a solvable problem, and the main reason it isn’t is that feminist or social progressive ideas of the male gender role vary from ‘umm..’ to ‘defective women’. It is very hard to make that into a role model, and that’s because a role model models a role.

But, more to the point, I’m not convinced that the scoutmaster or assistant to a youth pastor is, from a progressive standpoint, a bad role model in terms of the role he models. Like, Twitter progressives obsess over hank hill constantly, and he’s pretty conservative coded.

And conservative communities have little difficulty producing positive role models for boys. Which seems like an obvious drawback- leftist communities need to astroturf someone into a role that is already filled elsewhere.

Asked with genuine and humble curiosity, what are some positive conservative role models for boys?

I think a rising one could be Mike Gallagher:

  • Former Marine Officer
  • Has a PhD, but in intelligence studies, not weird university nonsense
  • Congressman before 40
  • Wife and kids

What sets it over the top is that he announced he's not going to seek reelection because "being a full time politician isn't what the founding fathers intended." That sets him pretty distinctly apart from conservative politicians who talk the talk and do vote the vote ... yet have only ever had the job of "man who talks in front of cameras about politics and stuff" so they come across as disingenuous. See, for instance, Josh Hawley - he's trying to lead their weird masculinity revival ... but he's wholly from the path of Harvard-Yale-Lawyer-Congress.

The ones that exist in their IRL communities.

Celebrities and influencers and pundits are not role models. Most people live essentially boring, normie lives and need role models that are people like them. This seems kind of obvious, but a lot of people miss it- neither a celebrity nor a fictional character makes a good role model because they aren’t normal. And the people you’ve heard of from beyond your Dunbar group are mostly celebrities, fictional characters, and a few cousin’s boyfriend types.

Conservative communities are generally quite good at positive IRL role models for boys from within or maybe just beyond the Dunbar group.

Mr. Rogers? Although I guess he was progressive back then.

Unironically, Mike Pence.

The "I can't be trusted alone in a room with a woman that isn't my wife" mike pence?

During an interview in 2002, Pence told a reporter that he would not have dinner alone with a woman other than his wife.

The "I want to force people to have funerals for their miscarriages" mike pence?

The "retarded children should be forced to full term" mike pence?

In March 2016, as Indiana governor, Pence signed into law H.B. 1337, a bill that both banned certain abortion procedures and placed new restrictions on abortion providers. The bill banned abortion if the reason for the procedure given by the woman was the fetus' race or gender or a fetal abnormality. In addition, the bill required that all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages at any stage of pregnancy be buried or cremated, which according to the Guttmacher Institute was not required in any other state.[155][156][157] The law was described as "exceptional for its breadth"; if implemented, it would have made Indiana "the first state to have a blanket ban on abortions based solely on race, sex or suspected disabilities, including evidence of Down syndrome".[156]

"Coal is the future" mike pence?

Pence has been an outspoken supporter of the coal industry, declaring in his 2015 State of the State address that "Indiana is a pro-coal state," expressing support for an "all-of-the-above energy strategy", and stating: "we must continue to oppose the overreaching schemes of the EPA until we bring their war on coal to an end.

He is your hero?!

Updated with the appropriate context.

  • -33

If a conservative shares these views (strawman/slanting aside) why do you expect this to be a problem for them?

We've just had a comment elsewhere about a guy that got crucified when his workplace fuck buddy turned on him. Wanna take another go at the Pence Rule being dumb?

He didn't say he couldn't be trusted alone in a room with another woman, he said he adopted a form of the Billy Graham rule: when in public, at an event that involves alcohol, one-on-one with a woman not his wife - don't. Have at least a third party there.

And seeing as how there were plenty of people willing to dig up dirt on Graham and others, any kind of E. Jean Carroll "he raped me in fifteen seconds, no I don't have a witness, that'll be $83 million thanks" accusation would have been smeared all over the media. Same with Pence, same with anybody not 100% on board the liberal agenda. Bill Clinton can be promised that the feminists will strap on the presidential kneepads to give him blowjobs, Joe Biden is of course innocent and we never said "believe all women", but if you're the wrong party or the wrong kind of opinions, we will hammer you to the wall for #MeToo.

Why do you think there are glass panels in meeting room doors? Why do you think there are guidelines around being alone with children/vulnerable adults? You're fully entitled to sneer at those precautions if you want to do so, but you can't blame it on Pence alone as being a dumb horny redneck that can't be alone with a woman without wanting to rape her.

We've just had a comment elsewhere about a guy that got crucified when his workplace fuck buddy turned on him.

Link?

Okay, I know I replied to someone quoting the case of David Sabatini on March 12th, according to the search history, and I'm fairly sure it was on here but I don't think I can find it. Unless I'm hallucinating like ChatGPT and it was a discussion elsewhere, entirely possible.

More comments

During the height of MeToo, >50% of men working normie corporate jobs implemented the Mike Pence rule, even if they didn't announce it.

For male managers / any position with real authority (hire/fire, performance reviews, etc.) this was >80%.

You've gotten a ton of reports for this comment. While we are less strict about straw manning and insulting public figures than we are about doing so to other posters, this still isn't a very good post. In response to someone who says "I admire Mike Pence" you kind of sneeringly rattle off reasons why he shouldn't, and the sneers are at best uncharitable interpretations of his positions. And below you get indignant when someone reverse unos you.

You are not ennobling the discourse.

I mean are all the comments about biden being a child sniffing senile corruption magnet getting the same treatment?

https://www.themotte.org/post/865/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/185995?context=8#context

Maybe the alone with women one is a bit misrepresentative, although he went about it in a weird way, no one else seems to publicise their avoidance of alone time with women the way he does. But the others are all dead accurate and I stand by them. They are not "straw-men" in any way shape or form, but actual policy positions taken from reputable sources.

These are all political positions and not matters of character.

Insofar as they reveal character, they are virtuous, in the Aristotelian sense, which is to say that the virtuous man has made habit of preventing himself from moral failure through self discipline.

What exactly isn't heroic about Mike Pence? Not sharing your views isn't disqualifying.

So you think it is "heroic" to not allow yourself in a room with a woman that isn't your wife? Falling on a grenade for your buddy in a fox hole is heroic. Forcing a family to have a funeral after a miscarriage is about the furthest thing I can imagine from being a hero. Making a poor mother bring a retarded child into the world is about as anti-heroic as you can get. Not to mention a burden on society and the family, and the child.

You have a simplistic understanding of heroism that doesn't allow for it in anybody that doesn't agree with your terminal values.

I hate communism, and yet I wouldn't pretend Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov's hero of the Soviet Union awards were undeserved.

If maintaining one's moral standard and virtue in the face of prevailing social mores or any form of great difficulty is not heroic, the word has no useful meaning except to honor one's friends.

More comments

He seems like a good role model to me. An honest person. A good family man.

Actions matter than words.

Even if we do care only about words, no one's words can survive a motivated effort to strawman their belief system as you have done for Pence.

That isn't a straw man. Those are stated beliefs/actions on his part. It is all on his wikipedia page even.

The dude probably wouldn't even be able to articulate his views in a satisfying way. I'm sure you could beat him in a debate.

  • -18

It is all on his wikipedia page even.

tl;dr, "not an argument".

Argumentum ad Wikipedium is not sufficient support for any point, especially around political figures. Have you ever interacted with the users who actually edit those pages on the regular? A charitable description would be "opinionated control freak with a lot of free time". Any information you get from them beyond the object level "thing happened" is suspect, and even the object level descriptions are often maximally uncharitable or tactically out of context.

The dude probably wouldn't even be able to articulate his views in a satisfying way. I'm sure you could beat him in a debate.

Could you? You're welcome to re-watch the VP debates against Kaine and Harris. Or I suppose you'd be watching them for the first time, since it sounds like you haven't seen Pence debate before.

More comments

Show me the part of his wiki page that says he can't be trusted with a woman?

I don't even care about pence but this is just a ridiculous strawman.

More comments

The "I know this will cost me my political future, but I'm not going to subvert the Constitution" Mike Pence.

Thank you for addressing zero of my points and substituting your own. Maybe he was just smart enough to know taking over a building doesn't actually topple the government.

  • -27

When someone does something brave in service to what is right, it is understandable that others may call him a role model. As for your points, they are not addressing the question at hand which is "what are some positive conservative role models for boys?" For a conservative the fact that Mike Pence commits himself to virtue in the sexual sphere, believes consistently in the sanctity of human life, and is pro coal are positives, not negatives. They would be good reasons for Mike Pence to not be a progressive role model, but are no obstacle to being a conservative role model.

The "I can't be trusted alone in a room with a woman that isn't my wife" mike pence?

Wasn't that about avoiding spurious accusations?

The refusal to be alone in a room with a woman that wasn't his wife, yes. That it was on grounds he couldn't be trusted is the partisan strawman.

That it was on grounds he couldn't be trusted is the partisan strawman.

And this is such a fascinating window into modern leftist psychology. Implicit here is the insane assumption that of course a woman wouldn't ever lie about a man making improper sexual advances in private, and that no one will point this out because to do so would be anti-woman.

No, it was about making his wife feel secure in their relationship.

Local scout leaders, church leaders, etc. Two of my bishops growing up (I'm LDS) were huge role models for me.

My biggest secular role models as an adult are probably John Carmack and Richard Hipp, but that's because I work in software development.

I haven't much experience with scout and church leaders though I also was a teenage admirer of John Carmack. I realize I knew very little about him until I listened to his four hour Lex interview

What makes him a good young role model? Even in a space like video games he can make a mark and be successful

  • deeply throwing himself into his work; stories about how Michael Abrash would leave him at the office on Friday and come back on Monday and see that John had been there the whole weekend hacking away trying to optimize Quake
  • shamelessly learning from every source possible (he mentioned consuming programming magazines and even reading ads for educational value)
  • was not credentialed but he didn't let that stop him
  • was actually kind of a young cyber-criminal (black hat hacker) but that didn't define his future
  • doesn't let his obsession with nerdiness have him eschew physical fitness: he's also a fit and in-shape BJJ practitioner
  • still ate pizza his whole life, every day, from Domino's
  • presumably still found a happy healthy relationship with a woman and is a father that provides for his family and also spends time with them?
  • mentions stuff about taking vacations to hotel rooms next to an airport just so he can get away and concentrate on his work undisturbed
  • oh also bought himself Ferraris to play with after he became wealthy why not

Okay he seems pretty awesome. Someone kids could look up to.

Does this stuff make him a conservative male role model though?

Eh Carmack probably isn't a super good role model of conservative values outside of a role model for the value of hard work and education, I agree. Though he is anti-woke to some extent (good friends with Musk, guest speaker at an explicitly anti-woke sci fi convention, etc.).

Richard Hipp on the other hand would probably be a good conservative role model. Devout Catholic, family man, hard worker and successful. Also massively impactful worldwide (you probably have a few dozen instances of SQLite running on your phone or desktop as we speak). And appears to be very humble in spite of that.

I guess I was hoping to see a definition of "conservative role model" that didn't automatically imply religious.

Seems like the ghist of it is

  • happy embracing fatherhood
  • devoted/providing husband
  • works hard
  • successful at work
  • proud of work

that didn't automatically imply religious.

To be honest, I don't really think such a thing exists. Non-religious conservatives are a thing, absolutely, but the most prominent and famous ones seems to have, uh, colorful personal lives at best. I love Clint Eastwood and his movies, but I definitely would not want to emulate his personal life.

More comments

Mm, I'll take your word for it. I'm pretty unimpressed by SQLite :P

If you need a SQL database and don't need multiple concurrent writers nothing beats SQLite in terms of performance and simplicity. But yeah if your usecase falls outside of that it's not really a good fit. Though the SQLite docs explicitly acknowledge that.

More comments