site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29428 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 19, 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.

I suppose what you meant to say was that no group of men accepts an incel as their leader?

If a man is sufficiently attractive / outgoing / interesting / popular enough to be a leader of men, he is also sufficiently attractive / outgoing / interesting / popular enough to be a fucker of women.

You're aware that the male attributes that gain the respect of other men and those that sexually attract women are normally rather different, aren't you?

They actually aren’t, though.

For one, there’s the halo effect: i.e. it’s natural for humans of both genders to assume that a person successful in one field is also successful in another. So ‘success as a leader of men’ will prejudice women positively towards such a man on other axes, and ‘success as a c(h)ad’ will prejudice men positively towards such a man on other axes, symmetrically. I’ve been reading a history of Italy lately, and this is pretty much Berlusconi’s entire (winning) strategy both in politics and in Bunga Bunga.

But we don’t even require such a Fully General Argument as the halo effect to demonstrate the thesis - assessing it in detail also makes it seem like there’ll be general “popularity” skills rather than gender-audience specific ones. Being a good conversationalist, being extroverted, openness to new experiences, gregariousness - all traits which will improve one’s success both as a leader and as a lover.

I don’t dispute that some traits like “Autistic knowledge of Gundam anime” is male leadership material in specific (one might say contrived) situations, like choosing a team captain when entering a Gundam trivia quiz, but in the vast majority of cases, Chad gets both the girl and the crown because both genders want the same thing.

‘success as a c(h)ad’ will prejudice men positively towards such a man on other axes, symmetrically.

That's probably true - although I'm not sure about the 'symmetrically' part - but that's a different matter. Yes, the observable results of one's attractiveness to women will likely prejudice men in such ways. That doesn't mean that the traits that sexually attract women in the first place will socially attract men as followers as well.

I'm not sure where the snark related to Gundam comes from, but anyway, that's very obviously not what I had in mind. I'd say the traits that gain the respect of other men and attract them as followers are roughly:

  • the ability to coordinate the efforts of a group of men for a common cause
  • having executive function
  • being virtuous (keeping your word, honoring your vows, being strict but fair)
  • bravery
  • holding your followers to the same standards

Why are leaders of men disproportionately physically attractive and tall (relative to the general male population, adjusting for age etc) then? This is true even when these men are selected overwhelmingly by other men, as with male CEOs of companies where a large majority of board seats are occupied by men.

Why are leaders of men disproportionately physically attractive and tall (relative to the general male population, adjusting for age etc) then?

I'm not sure that this is true.

http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2014/06/09/tall-ceos-how-height-helps/

https://wol.iza.org/press-releases/does-it-pay-to-be-beautiful

This is pretty well known and studied. Though it may be confounded by a negative effect on the other end, truly ugly people are often dysfunctional on other points as well.

These studies aren't strictly about "leaders of men" but leaders and employees of current corporations in which presumably also include women to a large degree (maybe not 50% but surely close to that).

The vast majority, 75%, of corporate board seats are held by men. That increase is disproportionately in the last few years, it was much lower a decade ago, so figure any study from before 2010 includes selection committees even more masculine.

https://www.msci.com/research-and-insights/women-on-boards-and-beyond-2023

If you have data based counter arguments make them! ((One might be that army rangers average "just" 5'9"; height may not be optimal))

But if we're going to argue that actual existing leaders aren't "leaders of men" and make nebulous anecdotal arguments to the contrary, I'm going to tend to dismiss them.

I'd turn the whole thing around and say the act of leading men is in itself enough to make one attractive to women.

Russia's most known "incel", Alexei Podnebesny had multiple women (probably will get jail time for something)

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