Many of you probably may remember a great old alternative to this place known as /r/CultureWarRoundup on Reddit. Due to its superior (which is by no means to say perfect), more "hands-off" moderation philosophy, it peeled off a good portion of the most intelligent people from here at one point (some of whom like me have returned a bit at least for the moment, many of whom probably did not) and was quickly gaining momentum, peaking at around 500 - 700 (IIRC, writing off the top of my head about all of this) replies per week to its main CWR thread while this place (back when it was on Reddit) at least once fell below 1K (or at least close to it) replies (again, IIRC) to the same (less than the activity now for the most part, as the moderation here's somewhat toned down its scattershot executions since then, not enough and not half as much as at the beginning of this site when they were trying to attract people by pretending to have reformed more comprehensively, but still somewhat, since those dark days of Hlynka (though a certain Amadan seems to relish the idea of bringing them back at least in part)). The people were speaking, and it wasn't looking good for this place, with the tides firmly turning in CWR's favor, but unfortunately, as jannies often do, CWR's own jannies started making their own very dumb decisions.
As Reddit started cracking down harder on wrongthink, stiffening new account requirements, shadowbanning more accounts without even pretending to respond to appeals from users that they aren't spambots (since of course that's never been the actual only or even main purpose of shadowbanning anyway), and in general making the site more of a pain to use, resulting in many of CWR's regular users getting banned from Reddit as a whole frequently (mostly only if they posted outside of /r/CWR (which most people did sometimes of course), yet occasionally even if not, as /r/CWR itself did suffer a few Reddit admin removals despite being mostly too small of a fish to worry about), exhausting their alt accounts, and finding it harder to make new ones/use the site effectively at all, CWR's jannies still doubled down on sticking with the platform in general, even raising new account length/"karma" requirements to post on the sub (and refusing to waive them for the new accounts of obvious regulars, which I know because I asked multiple times), perhaps due to paranoia about /r/SneerClub type infiltrators intentionally posting vastly incendiary/ToS-violating things to try to get them banned from Reddit (a concern I don't think ever actually materialized, whereas cutting off the earnest posters who actually wanted to post there but literally couldn't did). The great momentum they'd shown in overtaking this place began to crater as their regular users of the sub like me simply disappeared, unable to post because of the restrictions they foolishly chose to enforce in tandem with the Reddit admins in the hopes of avoiding the subreddit ban guillotine (which they've succeeded at so far... at the cost of their actual life anyway).
Though an eventual half-move to Saidit (which suffered from confusion as the Reddit sub stayed open as well, splitting the community, a mistake I do have to credit the mods here for not repeating after) restored some activity, it couldn't reignite the flame. Now both the still open Reddit and Saidit subs are in zombie mode. There was also a Matrix chatroom at some point, but the invite link to it seems to be entirely dead now (and of course nobody sensible wanted to move to a chatroom anyway which is not even close to the same medium).
So does anybody know what happened to these people? Where's the current venue for the continuation of SSC's CWR threads but with less of the crappy overbearing moderation you'll find increasingly more here (much like /r/TheSchism is an alternative but with even worse, crappier/more overbearing moderation)? Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism" (the very essence of the competition of ideas, and therefore impossible to ban from it) or whatever as they do here (again, not as bad as in the past, but still too much)? Any and all info is appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This isn't really about CWR as such, or an attempt to answer the question, but I'm fascinated enough by something to write about it anyway.
Specifically, what's the idea of masculinity here?
Pardon me if this is uncharitable, but I think this mistakes aggression for masculinity, or perhaps more importantly, for manliness. We define the term 'man' not only in distinction from 'woman', but also in distinction from 'child'. "I have become a man" suggests maturity and growing up. It also suggests some idea of virtue - indeed, the etymology of virtue, the Latin virtus, quite literally means 'manliness' (from vir, 'man' in the sense of adult male human).
What is discussion in a 'truly masculine fashion'?
I don't think it can be identical with mere aggression. If I think about unrestrained aggression, I typically picture children. I think of a kid throwing a tantrum. Shouting swear words and angrily jumping up and down might be behaviour we indulge in a child, but it's generally seen as shameful for an adult to do that. On the contrary, if I think about virtuous manly behaviour, I often think of tightly restrained behaviour - I think of self-discipline and control. To give a pop culture example, a few years back there was that popular Critical Drinker video talking about adult behaviour in Star Trek, and that is to say, often, manly behaviour. Spock and Kirk are engaging in a more masculine fashion when they're controlled and professional. Wild, violent outbursts like those of the reboot series make them look less manly, and more like children.
Rather, my sense of masculine virtue in discursive norms involves things like courage, honesty, resilience, patience, self-control, responsibility, and so on. This may lead to contentious arguments - it doesn't conceal or hide disagreement - but neither does it lead to petty screaming or tantrums. On the contrary, it keeps emotional responses under control, and is not driven by petty egotism either.
Sidenote: I have a theory that one day I'll write out in greater length that there's something in male psychology that tends to be more other-regarding, focused on the exterior to the self, even self-forgetful at times, whereas there's something in female psychology that's often more self-regarding, more aware of and focused on self-presentation, and the connections between self and other. This strikes me as a trend rather than an absolute, but on the intuitive, gut level, something feels basically 'male' to me in an outwards-looking posture towards the world, getting fascinated by things and even endowing them with spiritual value, whereas something feels more 'female' to me in focusing on one's representation of the self, in who-one-is-to-others, and so on. I venture this only as a half-baked thought I need to work on more, but if so, it would be consistent with a picture of virtuous masculine discourse that's about firmly and with a sense of practical discipline working out a shared problem, whereas virtuous feminine discourse would represent a different mode, perhaps more about shifting or aligning perceptions in an interconnected social web. That said, I say that conscious that actually-existing human beings shift between masculine and feminine modes at times as needed, and even that I myself use the feminine mode more often than most men.
Anyway, I bring it all up because having visited CWR (though never commented there), the impression I had was that it wasn't particularly manly at all. It tended more towards what I guess I'd call the childish mode, which is all about giving voice to immediate emotional reactions and visceral responses. It was more aggressive, and, if you're not used to it, it can be easy to confuse the masculine mode with mere aggression, but that does not ultimately equate to masculinity. That's boyishness, not manliness.
Interesting theory. I would disagree. My view is that both feminine and masculine are, at their highest calling, focused on the "exterior of the self" or "self-forgetful" as you call it. I believe the ideal of both feminine and masculine is one of care-taking, but the care-taking takes different forms. For the masculine, the care-taking is in forms of protection and provision (and this can find expression in the form of things to deploy, problems to solve, situations to fix) and for the feminine the care-taking is in forms of nurture (which typically plays out in human-to-human kindness, warmth, affection). And that this is why the masculine-feminine mix is so powerful to procreation, because working together gives children exactly everything they need.
[Edit: You're 100% right that men and women embody a mix of these masculine and feminine traits at different times.]
Of course, I might be wrong and you might be right. Or both of us might be wrong. I dunno. But this has been my experience and perspective.
Yes, I'm venturing this not as a definite claim about the world, but rather as a tentative theory or an impression that definitely needs to be explored further. Still, I think it aligns with the much-repeated observation that men are more thing-oriented and women more people-oriented. I'm also probably influenced by the bit with Mars and Venus in Perelandra, where the protagonist perceives Mars, the masculine figure, as like a sentinel standing atop a wall, gaze reaching out towards the horizon, in whose shadow we shelter; and Venus, the feminine figure, like a mother looking downwards and inwards, encircling and nurturing those she cares for. The male looks outwards and the feminine looks inwards. Likewise when people like Chesterton criticise Buddhism for being effeminate, they put that in terms of its interiority, its looking-inwards at the expense of engagement with the world. (I do not think this is a fair criticism of Buddhism, though, and I actually regard the Buddha as quite a masculine figure.)
But outwards/inwards is just a metaphor - it's not quite what I'm trying to express. It's something like a direction, a mental mode. Possibly gender isn't the right language to describe it at all, since as I said, I think all people use both the masculine and feminine modes, and it's merely that the genders traditionally tend more in one direction. However, I struggle to find language that quite captures the distinction I'm drawing. That could indicate that I'm just conceptually confused and that this is nonsense; or that the distinction I perceive is genuinely difficult to pin down.
I think it is difficult to pin down, but keep trying. For what it’s worth, I believe your Mars/Venus dichotomy here layers easily on my distinction of care taking. Mars is looking outward as a mode of care (protection and provision etc) and Venus is looking downward (rather than inward, I would say), also as a mode of care (nurture and nourishment etc). I haven’t studied the details of Buddhism so can’t talk much on that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link