site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   27844 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 13, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

  1. Before the Sexual Revolution became the new norm*, it was not standard practice to hit on girls outside your social circle as a single man. In fact, the unstated consensus was that your relatives or friends will introduce you to some girl in their social circle, thereby vetting you for her sake, and sort of vetting her as well, although that wasn't seen as equally important, I think. This is how rank-and-file people paired up.

  2. Mandatory military service, hard physical labor, service in the Boy Scouts, boarding school, time spent in all-male environments in general were all social norms throughout the West for large numbers of men. This had the aggregate effect of toughening men up to a degree, which served to at least partially offset/balance the effects of hypergyny / female hypergamy on the mating market.

  3. There was social consensus that masculinity is an ideal and is clearly defined. This wasn't undermined by any social institution. Boys were expected to assume this role, with sticks and carrots put in place accordingly.

  4. Feminists will happily complain that patriarchal societies enact slut-shaming, which is more or less true. What is left unsaid is that there existed the parallel practice of cad-shaming. Both single men and single women lived under the surveillance and control of their social circle to a degree.

"Eligible" in this context means "eligible for marriage or at least long-term commitment" i.e. "to be considered as a future husband". Which means a couple of things: not addicted to any substance, not a gambler, not a domestic abuser, not a rake, not a violent thug etc.

*So sometime between 1970-1980, depending on social circumstances. That was the cutoff point, I think.

"Both single men and single women lived under the surveillance and control of their social circle to a degree."

Yet, somehow, prostitutes continued to be healthily employed in every major and probably minor European city even during the most buttoned up times. Which proves the feminists point - there was never actually true equality, even in repression.

  1. How is prostitution being normalized evidence of inequality? Do you see it as proof that womankind's lot is uniquely bad?
  2. What does this issue have to do with equality in the first place exactly?

patriarchal societies enact slut-shaming, which is more or less true. What is left unsaid is that there existed the parallel practice of cad-shaming.

If being a john was seen as (relatively) normal yet prostitutes were pariahs, then this parallel practice of cad-shaming wasn't as prevalent as slut-shaming, and the feminists are justified in leaving it unsaid.

Well, yes, this is a classic misunderstanding. Cads aren't johns per definition, they're men who prioritise casual sex and other forms of hedonism and avoid the social role of the father, the husband, the provider and worker. It's not a matter of visiting brothels or not.

Visiting brothels sounds like failing at the social role of a husband to me.

And if it's fine because husbands weren't expected to be as faithful as wives, then this is again evidence of inequality.

Yes, it was fine. And it's not like the current social regime is not as unjust in other aspects, so it doesn't matter.

Anyway, why are you also bringing up inequality? This entire subject has nothing to do with inequality.

It's not like there isn't room to criticize past societies, but I don't get the whole equality angle. Even feminists don't want equality.

So sometime between 1970-1980, depending on social circumstances. That was the cutoff point, I think.

There were actually two sexual revolutions. One just after WWI, where a greater degree of free choice, longer period of courtship, smaller age gaps, and other things we associate with the west as opposed to other cultures today became the norm, and a second one where people admitted to having fornicated.

For pre-first sexual Revolution courtships, read a little house on the prairie. One of the books is functionally the story of how it went down(I remember the story of my great-grandparents, who were on the very tail end of this system). A minority of conservative Christians want to bring the system back, but as any of them could tell you, it’s not working very well.

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