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 -
Well, aside for that one group that it is much more dangerous to take to bed than it was in the '70s (or any time in the last 100 years before them). Which, speaking of political agitation and old-style repression, consider the following:
"There will be nothing but curiosity and enjoyment of the process of life. No competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always, do not forget this, Karen - never will be the intoxication of power, never increasing, but constantly growing more overt. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of elevating a friend who is worthy. If you want a picture of the future, imagine an attractive woman pressing her breasts into a little boy's face - forever." (SFW, enough)
You'll recognize that "stare at my [metaphorical] goods, and be enriched simply by their existence" as the promise of liberalism. We don't tolerate expressions of that any more because we are no longer liberal; instead, the women who should be encouraging young men to develop properly by doing that are instead invested in [quite literally, in some cases] cutting that expression off right to the quick. It can't be permissible for people to give sex or commitment outside of what biology dictates because there's serious money to be made instead- the organism needs to exists as an instrument of alienated labor, not as a subject of self realization.
(Which is the steelman context for the above. There's literally zero benefit to older women [traditionally: extracts zero resources while not benefiting from looking pretty] matching with younger men [traditionally: provides zero sex appeal while not benefiting from being able to extract resources]; which means that if they do it and stick together, they do it for self-actualization: because they want to. And if you squint a little, you'll notice that "this is ultimately what I want you to have, here it is, I know you're not quite ready but your wanting to be is enough" is exactly how God operates. I'm sure that's a total coincidence though.)
KulakRevolt made an interesting point a while ago about how society is dominated either by the scowls of bitter old women or the howls of laughing young boys (along with a few posts about how old women abuse young boys in the public education system); and I think there's something to the prohibition of the latter in a society as the former starts to take over, starting with the pathologization and assumptions of bad faith in everything they might do, making sure women who are psychologically closer to men are marginalized/suppressed or outright mutilated, disrupt the pipeline for people who don't have sex-magic-soul-bond/see sex as merely a means to an end goal to realize that about themselves, and the like. It's trying to cut the people who see sex and commitment as described above off entirely- they can't be allowed to exist, because how would anyone be forced to buy their sexual labor then?
Yes, but you have to distill the initial conditions and sociobiological incentives of the groups in conflict to figure that out because our language is insufficient to explain that. Much like how I use "straight", for that matter.
Should I browse his substack, twitter, or motteposting to find these?
Does Kulak write more about this? Can you? Why would bitter old women disrupt the Tomboys? Is it so bitter old women can get more men? Earlier you allude to the tension between self-actualization and... performing sexual labor? But now you're alluding to the tension between which share of women get higher market power?
I've heard some lamentations about Tomboys (trans'ing, etc.), and one of the things I also don't fully understand is the vitriol thrown at "pick-me's." But it makes sense to me as a pejorative for psychologically-male women. If this is true, it doesn't seem to go with your thesis. I don't see how bitter old women (feminist Cathedral, journos, etc.) as driving pick-me hate. It seems to me pick-me hate is more grassroots.
This is where I get really confused! Are you saying the bitter old women are disrupting the pipeline for "asexuals" (I mean those without the soul bond - not the way queers use it) to self-realize? Why does common knowledge of asexuals' existence mean that less sexual labor will happen?
My experience: It's been system-2!obvious to me for a very long time that sex is a part of power, and also a currency with value. But that has not changed my behavior at all towards obtaining sex and status. Also, the talk of "magical soul bonding" makes me think I don't have it. So I'm confused why asexuals becoming "woke" or "redpilled" (to appropriate more terms and applying them differently) will mean less sexual labor.
Maybe this has already happened? Did dating-app-ification, and social media in general, cause people to become more skilled socially? By that, I mean have we become more mimetic? Are we more meta as we mention "vibes," "bad looks" and "reading the room?" Last week's first Frat post had a comment claiming women don't actually desire sex, so maybe this is because of the novel, widespread female dating app experience? Maybe all this is contributing to modern adolescent sexlessness?
Twitter. He's on a kick ranting about this.
More options
Context Copy link
You posted (either intentionally or unintentionally; I legitimately cannot tell) one of the replies to the comment where I unpacked this. In fairness, my replies to this topic are starting to get fragmented, since I make a similar post every few months rather than just copy-pasting.
Is this it or do I need to go way further back? I had forgotten about this thread, but I do see the resemblences!
I was more directly thinking about this. Being a high-decoupler and what I describe as "asexual" in the comment I liked are more or less the same thing; 'asexual' is a slight refinement to 'high decoupler' but maybe the 'sexual' throws people off too much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Speaking solely to your question regarding pick-me hate (I’ll let your original interlocutor handle the rest), my theory has always been that pick-mes are the equivalent of scabs in the sexual marketplace. Let’s assume that most women don’t want to act male-brained: they don’t want to have to play video games or watch anime to land a good boyfriend. In the absence of pick-mes, they don’t have to: if all women categorically refuse to engage in male-brained behavior, then any man who wants a girlfriend will have to accept that. But now, if we introduce the existence of pick-mes, the equilibrium changes: it is possible for men (including presumably high-status men) to get a girlfriend that aligns more with their interests, meaning that ceteris paribus, a man would choose a pick-me over the equivalent “normal girl”. This means that in order for a normal girl to maintain her same level of attractiveness, she has to engage in a bit of pick-meing herself to stay afloat (and as we’ve previously assumed, most women don’t want to do that). Shaming pick-mes is therefore a method of preventing this from happening, in the same way that anti-scab tactics are methods of preventing wages from being lowered. I also hypothesize that the male equivalent of this is “simp-shaming”.
Note that the one time I shared this theory in real life to a woman, she wholly denied it, saying that the reason for pick-me shaming is that it is simply fundamentally embarrassing to see a woman debasing herself for a man. But even if that’s how this behavior is psychologized or rationalized, it still serves the broader game-theoretic purpose discussed above. (The same goes for simp-shaming.)
Discussing how salespeople negotiate deals puts the salesperson at a disadvantage, hence her refusal to entertain the notion. Of course, I already covered that too.
Which is why my entire thesis is "the women who don't see it as debasement aren't normal". That's why I have to cut a line between the two; most people seem incapable of acknowledging such a distinction even exists (then proceed to bury it in the term "women").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Right, I noted at the end that Marcuse's empirical description was not entirely correct today (especially if you're a straight white male).
This was a great anime by the way.
What? No it's not. It's dominated by adult men who have a lot of money.
No. My apologies, that was an attempt to interject humor into the OP. He wasn't right. He insisted that non-identical ideologies were actually identical. Our language was insufficient to justify his position because his position was incorrect.
Older men have only the authority vested into them in their ability to lead younger men: either in the personal level in tribal and medieval context, or in the ideological and abstract state apparatus in the current era. Young men are the currency of science, warfare, and economics. No vigorous movement has succeeded without them.
I disagree. The currency of economics is, ultimately, capital.
Sure, young men (and women) could band together and take over Somalia, and live without any older person telling them what to do.
However, most are wise enough to see that that this would be a terrible decision. Instead, they live in big cities paying high rents to older people, working in companies controlled by older people (at least indirectly), and voting for political parties controlled by older people.
You are mistaken: the currency of economics is homo economicus, the idealized man-laborer/manager in the shape of a spherical cow. It is human beings who are the primary agents of subjective value, who give meaning and purpose to capital and the commodities it produces.
You make the mistake of looking at the top of the pyramid: and seeing that they are all old, and conflating that with power. Experience and expertise count for much but the simple fact of biological death ensures that transition of power is inevitable. Institutions, by necessity, are constantly replacing their principal agents.
Which leads back to the original premise: any organization that fails to appeal to the young (and young men in particular) will be swiftly made irrelevant. Feminists are only successful insomuch as they are able to appeal to the resources of powerful men (in the suffragette era) or abstractly through the mechanisms of taxation and policy (now.) Old, infertile women have no power over young men and must sway their younger, more beautiful counterparts to have any political power at all.
As an analogy, someone might argue that the ultimate power in society lies with the ones who produce food, for everyone has to eat. However, this would ignore the fact that there is a competitive food market: plenty of food producers are willing to sell food for some marginal profit instead of requiring to be made lords of the realm.
With the work force it is just the same. Anyone with capital to spent on salaries and PR can reliably find young persons to work for them. Provide the correct incentives, and people will work for you just almost as reliable as water powering a hydroelectric plant. We generally assign little agency to that water, because while individual molecules move in a Brownian motion which seems random to us, in aggregate we can model what water will do very well. Humans are a bit harder to model, but the principle is the same.
For quite some generations, gaining money through paid work has been the best pathway to reproductive success available for most men. As long as the boundary conditions are correct, getting some of them to work for you is easy.
I also don't understand why you emphasize fertility differences between genders in old age. The power that old people wield is almost completely orthogonal to their reproductive capabilities. Nobody gives much of a damn if a male leader is impotent or not, and it has been that way for a long time. "Leader X has knocked up five women in the last year, so his family will be very big an influential in the future, while Leader Y has not given birth in a decade, so who cares what she has to say" is a thought pattern which is alien to most humans who have ever lived, and certainly is obsolete today.
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