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 -
It's really not that hard for men to get laid in the modern world, even if you're not good looking, and women tend to be more interested in getting married than men. Most ugly guys I know as friends have long-term girlfriends, but these are the types of guys I'd be interested in having as friends, whereas there are plenty of non-ugly guys I wouldn't be interested in having as friends and who don't (I don't say can't) get laid, largely it seems because of their neuroticism.
However, I agree that earlier marriage (at least involving men who grow up quickly - get a good job, a good trade, and have a reputation as a moral law-abiding god-fearing citizen) would be good. Promiscuity should be a reward of status for successful, artistic, or high-born men, like the old days.
Unfortunately statistics suggest your anecdotes are wrong.
Are you aware of the 2023 Pew Research survey that found 63% of young men aged 18-29 to be single?
I am normally somebody who advocates for careful skepticism of Reddit-style "Source sweaty?" link-mining, but the fact that even a single survey from a relatively reputable organization was able to derive this result is objectively insane and I believe likely automatically renders false your assertion that there aren't that many lonely men these days.
Do you really think every guy in this 63% is an unreasonable neurotic mess? And even if they are, isn't it society's fault if 63% of men have become such neurotics that they can't find a relationship?
In my experience, this strongly reverses once you go under a certain age (an age at which most people period would have been married not too long ago).
No, but I also I don't think every guy in the 63% is willing to get laid with any woman. If anything, you have to be a neurotic mess to want to sleep with ANY woman.
I'm not saying that young men have it easy in dating (quite the opposite) but that's not because it's impossible for them to get laid (with women - obviously it's easy for them to find some man willing to pound their ass) but rather it's because dating is a matching problem where relatively few people want to match with young men, especially the neurotic ones - which is a high proportion of young men.
At that age, I would imagine we are talking about lizardman constants for both men and women, in terms of their desire to marry?
Well of course not. It's just that, if they hew close to your average man, then we know from surveys such as the famous OKCupid one that they judge the desirability of women fairly on gradual normally distributed gradient curve, rather than, like women, fallaciously thinking that most men are below the median (a statistical impossibility) and only expressing that the top 20% of men have even remotely any significant desirability.
You're saying that the only young people who would want to marry are within the lizardman constant? I disagree.
Also, I don't know why you're so obsessed with neuroticism. Yes, young people are neurotic... young people. You don't think young women are just as neurotic as young men? You ever met any? It's just that that's another thing they easily get away with in our modern feminine-supremacist society/dating system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link