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 -
Using lots of adjectives does not add authority to what was essentially an empty assertion on your part. You are asserting that incel killing sprees are either a thing, or something we should be worried about. My assertion is that they are rare, isolated phenomena and that sexless men are of no greater risk factor in this respect than any other social malady, in terms of turning a few unstable people into killers. Your car analogy is more like "Sometimes car crashes happen because someone was transporting ducks in their car and the ducks got loose and caused the driver to lose control of the car; therefore, ducks are a threat to traffic safety."
I've already said we should should try to ameliorate the issue, because I genuinely do feel sorry for sexless men living lonely, miserable lives, and not because I am afraid of them becoming mass murderers. My point is that what you are posting is incel LARP. And also that you seem to put 100% of the blame on "society" for not providing pussy to every man who wants it.
I did not assert that there aren't many lonely men these days. I asserted that they are not a threat, or really, something we should be concerned about threatening society in a major way.
Read more carefully.
The men with a capacity for violence and change are mostly not in the category of "can't get laid."
Yeah, kind of. There have been societies in the past where men without wives were a rounding error (and often were true lunatics, though with even many true lunatics still having wives too), so it's not impossible. If a future society had significantly less availability of information technology, I would also put the blame on that society for not being capable of providing something that is ubiquitous nowadays (unless they were capable of it and not providing it was some deliberate and well-informed philosophical choice about how they wanted people to live).
Sure, but you also seem to be paradoxically reluctant to grant that this might also reduce to any degree the propensity to violence of people who are already affected by it. And I don't see why.
???
In literally your last post on the subject in response to me you wrote:
So again: ???
Yes, perhaps you should read your own posts before making them.
Alright. If 63% of men between 18-29 not being a possible threat at all is what you want to hang your civizational and historical reasoning credibility on, then so be it. I simply happen to disagree.
I think pretty much any man has a capacity for violence and change. You don't have to be appealing to women to operate a gun, bomb, etc. You don't have to be appealing to women to have a high IQ (and often the opposite is true). You don't have to be appealing to women to have strength in the numbers (as the 63%) number proves. I mean, as the classic OKCupid survey shows, most men aren't particularly appealing to women. But if they still didn't have a capacity for violence and change, history would look vastly different.
Would you consider that you're within the realm of claiming that the only men with the capacity for violence and change are those who are already considered desirable by society (and thus again have very little reason to want to change it)? Would you consider why history makes this obviously wrong?
What exactly do you think "society" should do?
What is the source of your confusion? I said there are not enough sexless men to form a disrupting force. You were talking about hordes of young angry males forming some sort of incel army. There are "lots" of lonely men, yes. I don't think there are that many as demographic.
"Being single" is not the same as "can't get laid," or "being involuntarily alone." That 63% figure you're pointing at includes guys who are banging a different chick every day of the week. As well as guys who aren't interested in a relationship right now but have had relationships in the past and want one in the future.
Sure, but realistically, the threat you are proposing, of angry young men rising up to destabilize society because they can't get laid, will not be posed by the sort of men who actually can't get laid.
I'm not sure what "within the realm of" means. If you're asking if I think only chads have a capacity for violence and change, no.
What historical examples of a large population of sexless men rising up and changing society because of it do you have in mind?
Take a serious look at the relationship norms that in the past put almost every person in a civilizational stabilty-enhancing traditional marriage and consider readopting them.
My confusion is you explicitly saying that aren't that many lonely men, then saying you never said that and I'm not a careful reader for thinking you did, and now saying that there are "lots" (?) of them but not "that many as demographic".
How about let's try this: What percentage of men total, and what percentage of men aged 18-29, do you think suffer from a significant degree of romantic loneliness? (We'll define "a significant degree" such that it decreases their perceived quality of life by at least 20%.)
This is somewhat of a fair point at least as a general objection. Though we know that at least 20-30% of men in the same age group are sexless in the last year (varying based on the year of course) from other surveys (and based on modern norms probably only a small part of those are in a happy pre-marriage relationship where they're abstaining from sex for moral reasons). We also know from other partner count surveys that the demographic of men who are "banging a different chick every day of the week" is incredibly small and that these men often aren't even single, so they're unlikely to constitute a significant percentage of that 63%.
But let's steelman your viewpoint. Let's assume that even half of these single young men are actually perfectly happy and not lonely at all. That still leaves us with 31.5% of men aged 18-29 being unhappily single, which is still insane, still a complete indictment of modern societal romantic norms, and still a serious problem that could represent a civilizational threat (again, smaller cohorts than that have severely disrupted society). (And I would argue it does by its very existence quite likely automatically represent a civilizational threat/problem, even for people beyond the men themselves, even if not necessarily in the form of any explicit "revolution".)
Ultimately, 63% is just too large of a number to handwave away by appealing to exceptions to the obvious general case of "People who are not in a stable romantic relationship are probably in general more romantically dissatisfied than those who are." I highly doubt it is even 50% who fall into these exceptions. I doubt it's even 10%.
Alright, this is another case where I think you're either contradicting yourself or you're not but I'm not understanding you. Either way we're talking past each other. So again let's try this:
On a scale from 0 (totally irrelevant) to 10 (highly relevant), how relevant is sexual/romantic desirability to a man's capacity for violence and change?
For sexless/romantically lonely men, none as far as I know, because the amount of male sexlessness and romantic loneliness present today is unprecedented in human history as far as I'm aware of. But as far as revolutions go, I think 100% of them fall into the category of "almost entirely men taking up violence against society because they have shared needs they feel aren't being met". I see no reason why going unfulfilled romantically/sexually would be some special case that couldn't be slotted into that same general pattern. People can rebel over religion, bread, ideology, taxes, etc. Why not romance/sex?
Again, I agree with you thinking it's probably not going to happen. I just don't see how you can entirely dismiss it so strongly. Way weirder and less likely things have happened in history than 63% (or 30%, or 50%, or whatever the number actually is, but we know it's probably not like only .5% or 3%) of men taking up arms against society because it's not providing them with something they want.
I don't actually object to this on a purely abstract level, but concretely, most people who propose this seem to think we should "reset" to some point in the distant past before whatever reforms and changes they don't like happened. I mean, if you want to abolish feminism or whatever your personal bete noir is, good luck with that, but proposing we should return to the golden age of Christianity and no gay rights, etc., etc., is larping. Do you have a serious proposal for social change, or just longing for a past age? Because "Hey ladies, maybe you should consider being a tradwife" is demonstrably something with limited appeal. On the other hand, if you're one of those people we've had in the past who thinks the Ret^rn should be more... forceful, well, I don't wish you luck with that. (And it's certainly not going to happen with modern Western incels.)
I don't know. Too vague (probably most men have felt that way at least at some point in that age range - I certainly did). Let's say it's in the ballpark of 50%. And?
If you reread that poll you cited, it further breaks down the "not in a relationship" group into those who are looking, those who aren't, those who are interested in a long-term relationship, etc. I think 50% is too high and 10% is too low, but we can argue about numbers all day - again, say it's 50% of young men in the West today who aren't getting laid as often as they'd like. And?
I am really not trying to be evasive, but I find these questions silly. I am not a sociologist and can only make up a number based on vibes. Let's say there is a positive correlation. What are you trying to get at?
Maybe true.
This rounds to "all wars are started by men who aren't happy about something," which seems to be so banally true as to make me wonder, again, what your point is? Since you admit that it's highly unlikely that a bunch of lonely, sexless men are going to start a revolution over it, perhaps we should discuss more productive solutions.
Well, this is all fine, but I don't think anybody is going to change what they believe because you don't think it's feasible or moral. I also don't think it means much that your evaluation of these factors makes you believe it's not a serious ideological notion/trend. After all, all of the world's "respectable" and Very Serious People thought it was infeasible and immoral that Trump would win in 2016. They thought/think the same of Brexit, that a significant portion of the population absolutely refused to receive a 2019 Wuhan, China novel coronavirus vaccine, that a significant portion of the population still doesn't support the notion of transsexuality, etc. As you might say: And?
Of course, that's all still a far cry from some general overarching revolution/restoration/reaction, but that doesn't always mean anything. The NSDAP receiving less than 3% of the vote in 1928 was a far cry from what they'd achieve by 1933, which was still a far cry from what they'd do in 1939, and the same on to their massive victory over France in 1940 and then complete defeat and debellation in 1945. The Taliban seemed defeated forever to many by December 2001 (since as mentioned the same thing that happened to them happened to the NSDAP in 1945 and they never recovered from it), but by 2003 they were back in the fight at least. And now since the middle of 2021 they are back to absolutely and entirely controlling the fate and character of their society again with no signs of that abating. But anything could happen and maybe in 10 or 20 years they'll be out of power again.
Just because history has been relatively quiet in the West since WW2 or so (not that long) doesn't mean it's not still a raging bull that isn't afraid to buck its supremely confident riders off back on their asses in the mud just the same as everyone else, same as it's done hundreds if not thousands of times. If nothing changes significantly for 1000 years, then sure go with Fukuyama and maybe declare the end of history. But it's not even been 100 years and we're already seeing the general post-WW2 social order fraying (and the modern openly post-Christian and/or pro-whoredom social order is even younger and weaker than that).
Appeal can change rapidly, especially with women. (Going based on the NSDAP as mentioned before, imagine how much being an early member of that then-fringe NSDAP probably harmed your general desirability with German women in 1925. Now imagine how much it increased it by 1935. Women more than most demographic groups have a general tendency to back Osama bin Laden's infamous "strong horse", even if it's the horse that mauled and ran past the horse they supported just yesterday.) But yes, it is correct to point out that a significant amount of history has happened without women having much of a choice in the matter (which I do indeed support, or at least don't think is anything avoidable, given how much less generally historically agentic women are than men in general).
And 50% of men not having a need fairly low on Maslow's hierarchy met is insane and a severe indictment of society's handling of the issue (so much so that again I don't think it matters what its Very Serious People or those who otherwise subscribe to its conventionalities think about alternative solutions, same as you wouldn't really care what somebody who got a 50% in algebra thinks about your factoring of a polynomial), and that there's not much reason to think the probability of some degree of widespread violence resulting from that is essentially zero.
To mirror your own objections, keep in mind that "not interested" and "not looking" doesn't necessarily mean exclusively aromantics (as I think those who genuinely belong to this group are a very small part of humanity) but also includes plenty of men who would be interested/looking (or more likely already married) in a better society, if they didn't think it was totally pointless in the face of modern feminine-favored romantic norms. Also undercounted are men who are technically in a relationship but still a significantly less happy one than they would be in under more traditional romantic norms.
You're the one who is, in my reading, trying to claim it is mostly impossible that romantically/sexually dissatisfied men of the modern West could be capable of having any capacity for widespread violence and change while frequently gesturing at their romantic/sexual difficulties/perceived undesirability as a factor determining that. So I'm not getting at anything other than determining what you're trying to get at, but I can only think now that you're being deliberately evasive and refusing to clarify.
The "banally" does not erase the "true", especially when you seem to be apparently trying to entirely deny that said banal truth could apply to romantic/sexual unhappiness. If all wars are started by men who aren't happy about something, then a large number of men, such a 50%, who are unhappy about the romantic/sexual state of society and their lives could probably start a war with a probability that is by no means guaranteed to be zero, right? If you agree with that, then the vast majority of the disagreement we've been having so far disappears. If not, then I want a hard and less evasive answer as to why not.
Well, what do you have in mind (that I guess apparently mostly doesn't involve anything that already worked before throughout all of human history, since you seem to mostly scoff at traditionalism)? I'm fine with more practical/immediate solutions being applied in the short term if they're effective (though I would also absolutely like that revolution to happen, and while I do find it unlikely at least in the short-term, if I could to any degree make it more likely, I would like to, so I might reject even objective improvements if I think they're band-aids that could keep the beast limping along for longer and trap us in a significantly inferior local maximum that too strongly reduces the probability of reaching the proper global maximum).
So let me try to clarify: I do think most of the incels complaining about how society has done them wrong and just wait and see, they're going to rise up, are weak and ineffectual men who aren't going to do shit, and this does correlate with them being sexually undesirable.
Does that mean I think it's "mostly impossible" that lonely, unhappy men in general might cause social change and even unrest? No, but I do not see that taking the form of your LARPs. If you wish to dismiss my skepticism as being akin to early skeptics of Nazis or Trump, whatever dude. There are many stories of skeptics who turned out to be wrong, but many more stories of skeptics who turned out to be entirely correct.
To answer your question literally, yes, I agree that the probability "is by no means guaranteed to be zero." Is that really what you're asking? Because almost no prediction has a probability "guaranteed to be zero."
If what you really mean is "Do I think it's highly unlikely?", yes, I think it's highly unlikely. It's highly unlikely because you are trying to read "50% of men feel unlucky in love" as "50% of men are so seethingly unhappy that they just need the right push to start a revolution." This is not 1928 Germany. Or if it is, not on the sexual front. Of all the things I can imagine leading to a revolution or massive social upheaval, incels would not be in the top twenty.
I don't scoff at traditionalism so much as compelled traditionalism, which is what guys like you usually turn out to be after. I think a tradlife is just fine for those who want it, but not so much for men who fantasize about, essentially, taking away women's right to decline the proposition. So short of that, I think all the various culture wars we discuss here regularly are pretty bad for society and contributing to widespread unhappiness. I don't claim to have concrete solutions; if I had a workable plan to end polarization and political extremism, I would be writing books about it. In general, however, as individuals we could do a much better of job of extending charity, grace, and compassion, rather than darkly rubbing our hands together as we await the Day of the Knife.
Yes, I agree with this mostly. I just think that this also probably applied to most the early supporters of most movements that were eventually successful. I doubt your average communist in Russia in 1900 was much of anything other than a loser, same with your average German far rightist in 1920. Now does this guarantee the revenge of the nerds? No, because there have also been plenty of losers who were supporters of fringe ideologies who have gone nowhere. But it does mean that them going nowhere is hardly guaranteed.
What's the difference between my "LARPs" and the actual forms in which they might cause such unrest in your view?
Well fair, but what I was getting at is whereas I would put it as probably no less likely than 1 out of 1000, it seems like you would put it at more like 1 out of 10 million. And again, just based on how many people it affects, I simply don't see the justification for such a low valuation.
I mean yes, you're correct. On the sexual front, it's far worse.
In the aggregate and long-run, there is no traditionalism other than compelled traditionalism, same as there are no pigs who don't wallow in mud who haven't been forced not to. As individuals, humans are weak, lustful, and impulse-driven animals. Only a strong social structure can free them from their base desires.
They contribute to widespread unhappiness worse than at least 20-25% of the population (at least) being denied one of the most basic human psychological needs and all of the knock-on effects that result (along with all of the other maladies of abandoning traditionalism, like the proliferations of addiction, pornography, and obesity)? Somehow I doubt that.
Nah. I genuinely psychologically value savoring even a .1% chance of a grand Day of the Rope over the mutual extending of charity, grace, and compassion with those who I feel are evil and deserve punishment. My enemies are my enemies. I want their misery, not their charity. Anything else is simply a tactic or unfortunate but necessary compromise.
Btw, why did you even suggest we discuss "more practical solutions" if you were just planning on readily admitting right after that you don't really have any (other than substance-free "Let's just all try to get along!"-ism (which I both don't think has ever worked in human history and is almost always, at least as far I've seen, simply an excuse for one side to try to more covertly suppress the other without their opposition, as I think it still is in your formulation))?
I have practical solutions, but they are long term, a lot of work, incremental, and unsatisfying to people who just want to flip the table. I'm mostly a moderate normie who'd rather work within the system, and probably one of the people you want to put up against the wall, so this is me extending charity, grace, and compassion.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean the average Russian communist in 1900 was likely some kind of urban intellectual or other educated or semi-educated young man with big plans. The average German far rightist in 1920 was in the Freikorps if he was a younger fellow maybe, but they spanned a wide range of social classes and status categories.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which societies? In the US in 1900 apparently 39% of adults were unmarried, and that was certainly a society in which sex outside marriage was universally discouraged and certainly much more rare than it is today.
39% of adults in which age group? Or 39% died being unmarried and/or never having been married? And if we go back to 1800 or 1700 or 1200, how do those numbers look? (It might seem bizarre by modern standards to consider 1900 particularly progressive, but if you compare it to the general trend of history it mostly is.) Also what about particular subsets of society who almost constitute their own society? How many Mormon adults in 1900 were unmarried? Or Muslims? How about in the middle Ottoman Empire (as the late one actually did have reported increasing amounts of romantic instability, being in decline and all)? Or pre-Meiji Japan? (Just random examples off of the top of my head.)
Plus, at the very least, 39% (assuming the age group involved is relatively young) is still a lot better than the modern numbers.
This survey from 2015 shows 66% of Mormons married, better than your general population numbers from 1900, and they enjoy all of the benefits of modern technology/society while being pretty heavily integrated with it and without much insulation from its general romantic/sexual rot and decline. So while they're not anywhere close to almost universality, that number still suggests that getting a lot closer to there isn't even necessarily that difficult if you have the institutional will.
(For more specific historical examples, it's worth noting that exact kind of traditional societies that had nearly universal marriage would have likely existed before the advent of modern demographic statistics. It's also worth noting that if you have nearly universal marriage, even if you have modern statistics, the concept of marriage rate as a statistic wouldn't seem to make much sense/have much relevance, same as we don't particularly put much emphasis on the rate of people who have two thumbs, even though some don't.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link