site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28456 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think the youth agree with me, here. Jordan Peterson's popularity, notoriously, came from offering boomer dad advice. Recently there's been discussion of positive male role models to replace Andrew Tate; Andrew Tate's pitch isn't much different from tons of other redpill influencers.

I’m not too familiar with the specifics of Peterson and Tate’s philosophies/grifting. However, from my vantage point, those who shriek at them are typically inverse weathervanes, so the two are probably doing something right.

My sense is that Peterson is already on the wane, and his ability to be a “red-pill” influencer is limited by his daughter’s hoetry, as a divorced single-mother, party-girl, and general e-thot. The optics are just bad: Physician, heal thyself. Which makes the AI-generated JP readings of the “having a daughter is the ultimate and final cuck” pasta all the more hilarious and devastating, although he may have gotten many of those taken down (but not all!).

A more blackpilled take might be: “If Peterson wasn’t able to stop his daughter from hoeing around, what chances do the rest of us have?”

The pro-social version of Andrew Tate isn't the male feminist activist. It's Mike Rowe.

It’s also possible the pro-social version of Andrew Tate is… Andrew Tate. Perhaps his advice is net-beneficial to young men, in helping them be more willing to stop cooperating in the face of defection. To the extent his advice hurts the Wonderfulness of women, maybe it helps young men more (albeit, pro-social behavior is often defined as what benefits women, so something that is an X loss for women but a X + Epsilon gain for men would be considered anti-social, even if Epsilon is quite large). He could be providing an essential service in expanding the Overton window, or at least slowing it from further shrinkage or swimming left.

Tate is useful in that he openly admits his business model was to get girls to exploit simps for cash and buy lambos with the profits (at least before he found a new model of exploiting losers who buy his courses). That message should be hammered home - these e-whores are working to take your money! As the ancient saying goes, 'I google big tits and get 10,000,000 results for free.'

Tate's simply pointing out that the emperor has no clothes when he says that. Girls are already out there engaging in that behavior. Tate's just advising young men on how they can get their cut of the action.

Tate literally exploits his own followers by selling them ‘fake advice’ predicated on a lifestyle that is itself reliant on selling the very same lonely young men access to camwhores. How is that good for young men? Tate exploits them more than he does any other demographic.

In the view of his young male followers I believe the expression goes "don't care, had sex." They wouldn't see it as exploitation insofar as it gets them what they want. The real exploitation taking place comes from women who end up behaving as useful idiots and reward men for poor conduct and disreputable sexual norms.

"Actually the useful idiots are the ones exploiting others" is a new one.

Not sure how you got that out of my statement.

Is it slavery when you get what you want?

"The real exploitation taking place comes from women who end up behaving as useful idiots"

Did you mean to say "is aimed at women"? If not, it's kinda oxymoronic to say that a useful idiot is not the one who's being exploited (made use of).

Unless you think women are helping themselves by offering themselves up to men who would use, demean and then discard them, leaving them miserable and with a trail of baggage, then yes, they are being useful idiots for the kind of men Tate would advise his followers to become. And he only does it because it works.

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