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 -
I've never in my life made love to a woman who was significantly to my Right politically. Perhaps some who were unconsciously so, but never intellectually, I've never been in bed who was going to talk about the Flat Tax. There was one girl I dated senior year of high school who absolutely swore up and down that she had voted for John McCain, no matter how many times I told her that we were both 16 in 2008, but even her reflexes were well to the left of her verbal commitments. I suspect this is true for many, perhaps even the vast majority, of men outside of James Carville or the Conways. It's perfectly possible for all men being to the right of all women to have relatively little impact, provided that the gaps between individual men and individual women aren't unbridgeable. This is why this seems like such a big deal to online Rightists, they do find an unbridgeable gap between themselves and most women, they must either lie about their political beliefs or seek out a tradwife type who will still be to their left, it feels to them like there are no women near them. But for a normie Republican, or even a relatively normie guy who think the Jews Control Everything but mostly doesn't think about it too much, there's a woman who is to his left but sympatico enough that they get along. And as noted below by @Gillitrut, the gap isn't really between conservative men and liberal women, it's between very liberal young women and normie Democrat young men. So the "political polarization" question only matters inasmuch as one thinks the Incel Question is important, donc on bouge...
I categorically reject the tired masturbatory fantasy of Incel Revolution because, in the vast majority of cases, sexuality is a meritocracy. A degenerate, and in many ways unfair, meritocracy; but nonetheless a meritocracy. "Women want 6-6-6 in a man" is the incel rallying cry, and I feel for their suffering and maybe those are unfair standards; but realize that only leaves their team with the short, the poor, those lacking in rizz. There is never going to be a significant threat from Incels to society, for the simple reason that if they manage to get their shit together long enough to set up a serious terrorist organization, they'll probably start getting laid. The traits that women choose, and that society values to provide the social and economic proofs of value that women choose, aren't perfect proxies for how I would rank male virtue and talent, but they're not completely orthogonal either. The best men might not be the ones drowning the in pussy, and the the men drowning in pussy might not be the best men; but the best men are at least gettin' some, and the men drowning in pussy generally have some measure of the classic heroic virtues. To be totally left out, there's something kinda wrong with you. Fight Club was prescient in this, the entire book hinges ((Spoilers old enough to rent a car ahead)) on the moment when the protagonist is attracted to Marla but can't bring himself to ask her out, and that conflict is what splits out the awesome part of his personality into Tyler Durden. And then he gets fucks Marla silly, while the sad incel part of him watches. There's a lot of questions about the nature of the self in there, but at core that's the worm in the apple for the Incel Revolution: to be capable of revolution, the men involved would have to improve themselves to the point where they'd be getting laid, leaving only the truly insane terrorists. And even if there were enough of those to cause problems, we must remember...
"War is the continuation of politics with the addition of other means." (DRINK!) Your original Greentext is the reversal of Clausewitz, politics is war by other means. Both formulations have some truth to them! There is an element of substituting Jaw Jaw for War War. At the same time, consider that as the situation deteriorates, moves can be made. Accommodations can be reached. #Feminism might be out over its skis right now, but it can and will pull back if the system is threatened. Adaptations would be made. Women, and the men who are already benefitting from the current system, have too many levers to pull, too much to offer the men who are exiled from the system currently, to go down without a deal being struck.
Lovely insights all round! Very well said.
More options
Context Copy link
Regarding your second point: You’re never going to see an incel terrorist or revolutionary movement actually consciously identifying itself as such. That’s correct. The problem is that you’re creating a pool of potential labor and mindshare for a wide variety of extremist ideological groups. If you look at the actual foot soldiers for ISIS (not the high level leadership), most of them joined because it meant they would get a wife. Not 72 heavenly virgins, one terrestrial wife. If you look at Black September, the vast majority of those guys were permanently single too. In fact, when the PLO decided to disband Black September, they specifically did it by getting all the members hitched and in families. I don’t know this for a fact, but I’m guessing most Brownshirts and communist guerrillas probably weren’t married men with families either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link