site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28507 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 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.

Putting aside the weird "save the white and Asian race from dominance by the scary blacks and browns" at the end, I think here's the issue why the people in this thread aren't getting it.

There's the population of women.

There's the population of women that are OK w/ the pain of childbirth (or maybe they're lucky it's less painful for them) and the worries, because they enjoy being a mother that much more, and so on.

Then there's the population of women that thinks the pain is too much, doesn't want children, whatever.

It used to be the latter population was basically forced to be mothers, because that was their only option in society, outside of spinsterhood. Now, they don't, or maybe instead of having five by 27, they have one at 37.

Nobody among the latter group is saying the former group should stop having children. They just don't want to be forced (or "forced") to have more children by the state or society. Group B always existed in one form or another - they just never had a voice before, and if you're used to a society where all women either legitimately or have to act like they want to be mothers, it can sound fake or like some plot or whatever.

I wonder if we would see a difference between countries that were Catholic for longer periods of time, and the percentage of women who genuinely want kids.

I say this because Catholics are more likely than Protestants to encourage women to live in celibate communities, and this would give women in the second group a way to select out of the gene pool.

I think I saw somewhere that, in Europe, more Catholic countries have lower birthrates than more Protestant countries. Of course, they're all fairly godless now.

Convent membership has disastrously crashed. They're importing African nuns since approximately no Westerners want to join.

In decades past this could be a good measure. But not so much today or the past couples decades or so.

I mostly mean for the past few centuries, does it have impact now?

Now we have birth control and secular women who don't have kids, so it's a different bottleneck today.

TFR in southern Europe and Latin America is generally lower than comparable countries. Catholicism does seem to suppress single motherhood among whites even as it doesn’t do anything else in low doses, though, so maybe it’s just that?

I think the population of women who don’t want to have kids isn’t really all that big. It’s pretty small actually. The reason so many women are childless, according to survey data, is that they haven’t met the right partner. Unfortunately one side effect of feminism is that it makes a large number of men suddenly unappealing. Perhaps they were always unappealing partners on some level, but we are now seeing the rise of working-class childlessness, which seems especially bleak - no, you’re not avoiding sacrificing vacations and material wealth and leisure time. You never get any of those anyway. Life for you is a true slog and when you’re elderly you’re gonna feel truly destitute of meaning. Your underpaid secretary or pink collar job won’t give you any meaning or satisfaction whatsoever. Probably this is why we are seeing alcoholism skyrocket among women.

I think the population of women who don’t want to have kids isn’t really all that big.

It's certainly risen in the past few years, ideologically.

I think that’s more sour grapes than anything

Some of this is surely due to a decline in the quality of the average man, I suspect. 'Pass' is a valid selection and, say, a ghetto black woman opining that she can't find a suitable man to partner with is likely speaking the truth... and a truth which would not have been true in 1950.

And yet you don't see ghetto black women fighting over the passable black male with a fulltime job at McDonald's, you see them fighting over the edgy drug dealers and sexy fuckboys that eventually become their baby daddies.

I mean, there are no men available to them who aren’t in the bottom quintile. It’s perfectly reasonable to pass up a relationship if it has to be with someone in the bottom quintile. Being a criminals mistress, on the other hand, often comes with short term benefits.

To me this is a similar (and expected) style of thinking to "poverty finance"

Why do poor people buy lottery tickets or gamble when the expected return is zero? Consider the alternative; "saving" but with poverty levels of cash.

Say you are barely making ends meat but manage to come up with $10 a month which you dutifully deposit into some online broker account (leave aside that it might be difficult for you to open one of these accounts).

$10 / month for 20 years at an assumed 7% annual return (within the accepted range for the SP500)

You will have $5,209.27 in 20 years.

Yeah.

20 years of diligence to have enough for a down payment on a car? It takes quite a bit of delayed gratification and discipline to stick to it. So, instead, shoot for the moon! Lotto tickets, semi-legal gambling, or just hedonic indulgence.

If you're a woman sifting through bottom quintile men, perhaps you can convince yourself to stick it out with a guy who's only ever semi-employed and semi-sober in the hope that over the next 20 years you'll make it work and build a modest home?

Or, you say "fuck it" and fuck the local drug dealer so you can enjoy a certain "lifestyle" for a few months or a few years.

I've never accepted the idea that poor people are just "stupid." A lot of them make a host of bad decisions (often repeatedly) but they are operating in a different context. The average PMC household has the means to give each of their children a four year vacation masquerading as an "education." That creates a lot of different time preferences and relative value calculations than when you're bouncing checks to pay rent and put gas in the car. Asking the latter group to employ what is top 10% levels of focus, discipline, and self-denial is like admonishing a functional illiterate to "crack the books and study to pass the bar."

The same can be said for men who say “pass” (although it’s mostly women who are selectors), women of the working class are majority obese. The main reason a man wants to be with a woman is her physical attractiveness but so many women lack even a basic level due to diet. I have a couple working class male friends who have long term partners and by their 30s they’re honestly kind of shrek-like

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