site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   33165 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 4, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nick Fuentes's "your body, my choice" is now apparently on the lips of middle school boys everywhere, if reddit / news sources are to be believed (I'm not around children much). By merely writing this I run the risk of already paying too much attention to a throwaway piece of internet trolling, forgotten by everyone by the time you finish reading this. But given that this taunt has penetrated even my own hitherto groyper-free feeds, and in fact stayed in my mind for a day or two, I wonder if it has some memetic staying power. And I confess that some part of me finds it hilarious. The anti-vaxxers couldn't ruin "my body, my choice", but I feel like this might.

Is this a display of a certain kind of genius for provocation? In rhetoric, we are told not to accept the opponent's framing of a question. And yet here he accepts the opponent's framing of bodily autonomy wholeheartedly, and simply inverts it, ridiculously. Therefore at first it appears the phrase can be dismissed as having no authenticity - a pure troll. No pro-life person would begin their argument by asserting control over of a woman's body. To take the statement at face value and be triggered would surely be to model the opponent incorrectly, to fail the ideological Turning test. Or would it? Ross Douthat isn't about to repeat this slogan, but in the world he wants, doesn't the symbolism of the father walking the bride down the aisle to hand her over have to regain some power? So cue the articles on "MAGA misogyny" and the despair and anger and discussions on how to protect oneself from rape in /r/TwoXChromosomes.

I guess I don't have anything particularly interesting to say about this, but I'm curious what people here think. First, why does it seem that the trolling and triggering in gender discourse is so asymmetric? "No means yes, yes means anal" comes to mind. Are there good examples of the manosphere being successfully provoked in such a manner? You could point to the 4B movement, for instance, but if I'm not mistaken the women declaring celibacy were being earnest, not trolling. Second, is the mainstreaming of 4chan culture, and its exposure to children, important? Or is this just standard fare for schoolyards and male group chats, and no more insidious than, say, the spread of woke ideas in schools?

Nick did tweet it multiple times, and it's a type of trolling where it's hard to know if it's trolling or not, because it's credibly something he could mean. It could mean a return to the patriarchy. Or as mentioned above a sexual joke. Or just for lolz. All this does is play into the hand of the opposing side's worst possible framing, yet for memetic value it wins.

This is why Nick is so smart. He waited until after the election, knowing nothing could be done; making one's own team look bad with sexism is not a concern anymore. He was originally skeptical of Trump and hated Vance, so he's hedging his bets, and then after Trump wins, instead of looking dumb or a traitor by not voting for him, he one-ups everyone else by being MORE extreme so his supporters forget that he didn't vote for Trump. had Trump lost he could have just blamed Trump being a Zionist shill. So both bases covered.

Anecdotally, this specific taunt seems to have absolutely found its mark. So many of the American women I'm acquainted with have been completely demented by this. Rather than see it for the taunting and trolling it is, they're shrieking about it being an "actual rape threat" -- I guess when the needs of your class are routinely addressed by those in power, you have an incentive to hysterically exaggerate every slight.

Yeah, this hit our media too.

Are there good examples of the manosphere being successfully provoked in such a manner?

"KillAllMen" and "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" would be the obvious ones, although they're old. I will note that these didn't actually work out all that well for the provokers.

First, why does it seem that the trolling and triggering in gender discourse is so asymmetric?

You have to understand the power asymmetry. The Women's side of the gender discourse is run by Women's Studies department with tenured professors. Low grade trolling is a bit beneath them. They don't want to trigger people like Groypers. They dislike being reminded of the continued existence of Fuentes and Tate.

Also trolling like that is an aggressive guy thing. The equivalent is probably that ex-teacher on Tik Tok who talks about politics in a pre school teacher voice like her viewers are small children.

The Women's side of the gender discourse is run by Women's Studies department with tenured professors. Low grade trolling is a bit beneath them.

/r/incel_tears has >300k members, of which I'd assume the majority are women. It's not exactly Groyper-style trolling, but I think that pointing at and laughing at miserable members of your outgroup comes from the same psychological space.

It was funny but I don't like this sort of thing. It disturbs me that battle of the sexes has apparently become the leading interpretation of this election result, which is somewhat nonsensical given that Trump won White women. Men vs women strife is much worse than racial strife in my opinion (yes I understand that racial strife can lead to wars and genocides in a way that gender conflict doesn't, but I'm talking about at the non-violent levels we are currently experiencing). I've never had a conversation with a black person in my life, what do I care if they hate me? But I really would rather not see my family divided. I would much rather political battlelines become White vs non-White than man vs woman.

It disturbs me that battle of the sexes has apparently become the leading interpretation of this election result, which is somewhat nonsensical given that Trump won White women. Men vs women strife is much worse than racial strife in my opinion (yes I understand that racial strife can lead to wars and genocides in a way that gender conflict doesn't, but I'm talking about at the non-violent levels we are currently experiencing).

I wish there were a battle of the sexes instead of the one-sided bullying we've seen for the last 30 years. Men haven't even begun fighting back, they have just started to imply that further bullying might meet more resistance. The only blatantly anti-male policies we are thinking about rolling back are some of the more egregious instruments with which campus kangaroo courts are punishing the crime of men slighting their moral betters (something that the first Trump admin adressed which was then immediately reversed by Biden). And if Musk actually starts with his anti-bureaucracy crusade, we might lose some of the predominantly female sinecure positions. But that's about it. And women act as if they were thrown into that weird rape-fantasy of handmaid's tale.

for the last 30 years

In truth this has been closer to the last 150 years (when automation really began to replace men in the workforce, and reliably brought women's physical productivity to within [insert wage gap statistic here] of men's), but from August 1945 to some time in the late '70s female bullying could reliably be ignored.

We've had this problem for 5-6 generations; nobody's quite figured out how to crack it yet (lying flat is about the best men have been able to do).

But I really would rather not see my family divided. I would much rather political battlelines become White vs non-White than man vs woman.

...and this is the difference between you and people like Fuentes.

The result was a gender battle, but it was childless cat ladies ("gen Z boss and a mini") and blue-haired institutionalists (e.g. librarians and teachers) versus, well, everyone else. It wasn't necessarily that Americans wanted Trump to win, they wanted that coalition to lose.

I've watched this PSA from 1946 annually since 2014. I think it provides a pretty good rubric for what happened. Americans repudiated the increasingly slippery slope towards despotism.

You know, I planned to write a comment that disagreed with you, but after looking into it, I've come to agree with you quite a lot. While there is a big gender gap, the more significant gap continues to be the racial gap. (But the gender gap among Latinos and African-Americans was particularly large -- no wonder Obama came out to try and get black men to vote for Harris!)

The real battle of the sexes story always seemed to me to be the success of Trump among younger men (older men and women were already locked-in): men 18-29 overall voted for Trump slightly more than Harris (49-47%), not just white men, but all of them together. Young women broke massively for Harris, though, 61-37%.

But then I dug a little deeper.

White men 18-29 voted 63%-35% (!) for Trump, white women 18-29 were split 49-49 (also a !). This should mollify all of us a little bit -- from media coverage you'd expect that young white women voted for Harris 80-20, but the reality is they were split down the middle. I'm fascinated by these young women -- where are they? Why aren't we hearing more from them? Would they have also shaved their heads if Harris had won? Perhaps there's hope for the younger men dumped by their girlfriends over voting for Trump after all. God bless America. 🇺🇸

I continue to believe there's some dark force out there trying to get men and women to hate each other. Ginsberg and Scott did very well appropriating the ancient Carthaginian demon, maybe there's some other evil creature whose name we could apply to the feminism-redpill-abortion-Tinder-FDS-Fuentes-industrial complex? Whatever it is, we need to kill it.

I'm fascinated by these young women -- where are they? Why aren't we hearing more from them?

I touched upon this earlier, but annecdotally, the mothers of young children, and women in stable relationships hoping to become mothers broke overwhelmingly for Trump, and again annecdotally a good part of that break seems to have come from the perception that the Democrats are the party of queer Tumblr bullshit.

The Trump add about Kamala being "the candidate of they and them not you" that was running in my neck of the woods for about a month prior to the election appears to have struck a cord. Afterall, would you trust this person with your kids? what about this person?

That linked comment of yours is about the Ukraine.

Odd, should be fixed now.

I just see it as a mockery/taunt. Obviously Democrats chose to make this election about abortion, under the slogan “my body, my choice.” It stands to reason that if Kamala lost, it must be “your body, my choice” (for some value of “my”). Sorry ladies, Democracy has spoken.

The boys are gloating to the liberal girls that their team won. They are doing this by inverting the liberal catch phrase (“my body my choice”) to indicate ownership and victory. Ownership, or dominance, is such a mainstay of young male speech that I don’t think it needs an example, but “you got own’d” is the most hilariously explicit version. “Sonning” or “been adopted” is what the teens are using to indicate that you’ve become the loser’s father, at least last I’ve checked. In the gaming days of old, players would simulate raping the dead enemy’s body and talk about the other team “getting raped”.

Kamala’s loss has given young boys the ultimate opportunity to boast. Her own catchphrase can be expertly inverted to indicate that the boys’ team won using a clear, in vogue signal of dominance (“I own you” + “get bodied” = “I own your body”). When I first saw Nick’s tweet I literally laughed, and I still can’t read the controversy without smiling, because it’s so decidedly non-serious. There’s no serious policy prescription to attach to the tweet. There’s no actual interest in controlling a woman’s body. It’s simple, childish making fun of the other gender’s party. The fact that it has 80 million views on Twitter and teachers are talking about their kids saying it is… sorry, it is very funny. It is infinitely more childish than whatever the news is saying about it to instill a moral panic.

Note that Nick’s audience is separate from the groups that actually successfully control women’s bodies, which are all the conservative religious groups, especially Muslims. Nick is not a cleric in charge of your local Salafi mosque (a group that no liberal will ever consider protesting), he’s a dude making edgy commentary to teenagers. He is against abortion because he wants a conservative sexual culture where men and women marry early. That isn’t anti-woman as he wants virginity for both men and women.

Nick’s audience is separate from the groups that actually successfully control women’s bodies

Is it? Nick has said he supports the Taliban's gender policies. I think he probably has a significant Muslim fanbase nowadays.

Muslims have their own edgy streamers, like someone named “Sneako”. Fuentes say “Christ is King” way too much for a devout Muslim audience

Lately I've noticed a Muslim talking point that Islam appreciates Jesus more than any other religion, and that Christians are essentially slightly misguided Muslims who Allah will save anyway. I get the impression that for a lot of these gen Z trad groypers, it's the anti-degeneracy part of religion that they care about, not the specifics of the theology. Hating on Muslims also seems to have become a little uncool in the alt-right, since it would put them on the same side as Israel.

Christians are essentially slightly misguided Muslims who Allah will save anyway

I’m intrigued; is this claim endorsed by any prominent mainstream Islamic theologians?

AFAIK, the sole requirement for conversion to Islam is sincerely believing in the Shahada, viz. that there is only one God and Muhammad is his messenger. Do Christians get partial credit for believing the first half? If so, what about Jews?

I heard that Muslims consider Jesus a genuine prophet and messenger, just not the Son of God. (Whereas Jews believe he was a maniac). So Christians are directionally correct, they just need to learn how important Mohammed is.

I believe Nick was responding (at least memetically, if not directly) at the barrage of Harris ads around reproductive which all ended with a sinister (of course old white) GOP politician saying "I got the most votes, it's my decision". Of course, those ads could have been crisper, they could have actually said "it's my choice" rather than "my decision" which would have been an appropriate anaphora.

And FWIW, pro-choice referendums ran >10 points better than Trump! So they were absolutely right that voters want reproductive freedom much more than they wanted Trump. Floridians voted 57% for abortion even though Trump won 56-43. Trump carried NV and AZ but they both passed abortion rights measures too.

So while Fuentes trolls the folks for whom reproductive freedom was a central plank of a losing battle, it's a double troll that he gets to claim that voters support him on the issue when ISTM that the issue wasn't as salient. Hence the split-ticket Trump+abortion voters.

This is explicitly the case - if you watch the video he put out about he goes on to say "I'm your republican congressman", a direct quote from those advertisements.

the barrage of Harris ads around reproductive

The clever thing is, it's not a Harris ad. There's a nice little disclaimer at the end that it's not authorized by her campaign. So, of course, when anyone complains, it's not the Democratic Party or their politicians behind these ads, it's just totally unaffiliated randos!

There has to be a term for that (other than implausible deniability). I feel like I see it a lot with IdPol stuff: "Well, most Democratic politicians don't use LatinX, so you can't blame them for your workplace's employee group!"

It's a legal thing, spending on "issue ads" is treated differently in campaign finance law from explicitly endorsing a candidate.

I meant more that I often can't point to a specific politician endorsing a specific view, but that view is so promoted culturally that it just feels associated with them regardless.

Nick Fuentes doesn't even like girls. I don't just mean that he's a mysoginist. I don't even think he likes them sexually.

I'm certainly not going to say, "your body, my choice," is good rhetoric, but there is a kernel of reducto ad absurdam to it. It's saying, "Hey, y'all were the ones saying, 'my body, my choice,' was on the ballot. Y'all lost, so now by your own reasoning that means your body is my choice, because we won."

Nick Fuentes doesn't even like girls. I don't just mean that he's a mysoginist. I don't even think he likes them sexually.

Wasn't he confirmed as gay, or am I just getting him mixed up with other far-right figures?

(Wait, no, it was that he liked femboys, wasn't it?)

He hasn't been confirmed as gay, but screencaps of his gay porn browsing habits were accidentally released to the public and there are a lot of weird stories - I'm not going to explicitly detail the "Nick Fuentes: Cum Detective" story here for obvious reasons, but I give it a >90% chance that the guy who hates women, looks at shirtless images of athletic boys etc is gay.

A right-wing female friend sent me a screenshot of this yesterday and said she was embarrassed to be associated with the idiots who wrote it. For my part, I think it's counterproductive memetics. While I've personally chuckled at some similar memes - e.g., "They're milking AOC on the White House lawn and you're laughing?" for its sheer absurdity - I reckon this kind of extreme edgelord humour is alienating and mysterious for the vast majority of women.

Male friends can absolutely drag the shit out of each other and it's still pretty good-natured, or even an active form of bonding, but nothing as overt happens in female circles. Similarly, young men on voicechat on videogames have been talking about fucking each others' moms in various depraved ways for decades, while lots of women experience this as traumatising aggression. It's clearly a gendered phenomenon, potentially even a biological one - it wouldn't surprise me if we found that isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea where men bond with "your momma" jokes. But I think it codes as grossly and pointlessly inoffensive to most women and genuinely scary to some. While I think that's large because they just "don't get it", that doesn't change the fact that it's probably bad politics.

Similarly, young men on voicechat on videogames have been talking about fucking each others' moms in various depraved ways for decades, while lots of women experience this as traumatising aggression.

This is such a weirdly off-base comparison, though. The proper analog would be men joking about raping each other "in various depraved ways," not each other's moms (as the saying goes, tragedy is me getting a paper cut, comedy is anyone else besides me getting raped). Do locker-room lads generally respond with twinkling eyes and good-humored grins when their bros graphically describe how they will bend them over, force them to the ground and ravage their assholes as they scream, because their bodies are somebody else's choice? Maybe so, I don't hang out in men's locker rooms. Sounds fun!

A sincere question: if sexual-assault jokes are an essential and universal part of male bonding, do gay dudes joke about raping each other's dads?

A sincere question: if sexual-assault jokes are an essential and universal part of male bonding, do gay dudes joke about raping each other's dads?

Yeah, making another guy's dad your bottom is a common joke.

The thought that, in ${CurrentYear}, there is likely a non-zero number of grade school kids who taunt each other not by saying “my dad would beat up your dad,” but rather “my dad would TOP your dad,” warms my icy heart.

The topic of sexual assault is certainly nothing sacred in these interactions in the same way it is in mixed settings, but there’s typically the gay taboo in all of this, so you’re not going to joke about raping another man unless you’re willing to roll with that. That said, as the homophonic taboos weaken, I expect we’ll see more inter-male banter like this.

The topic of sexual assault is certainly nothing sacred in these interactions in the same way it is in mixed settings,

I disagree. I've heard a lot of "I'm gonna fuck your mom" discourse in my time, but the implication is usually that she's been seduced. Suggesting that you were would rape someone's mother would go beyond the bounds of banter and would be seen as pretty hostile (or quite weird at best)

Yeah, the point with the rape comments on video games is that it’s considered low-status and inappropriate even by the low standards of teenage boys. Those kids were always considered to have anger issues, no one actually defended them. It’s the softer and more playful ribbing that’s normal for well-adjusted men.

I also think it comes with a side of “I’ve cucked your dad.” And the point of the cuckold meme isn’t that someone raped your wife, it’s that someone was so charming and superior to you that she couldn’t resist your charm.

But for the original claim to be true, that rape jokes are just fun male bonding and guys don't take it too seriously, then there should be no gay taboo at all, correct? Because the idea of being physically forced to be penetrated in ways you don't want, by a stronger person whom you don't desire, is not threatening or traumatizing to men, so why would it be less funny for a straight guy than for a gay guy?

It's telling that your bottom link is not actually a friendly moment of male banter, but a dominance chest-thump from a Gen X right-leaning guy toward his Gen-Z leftist outgroup, and even so he attempts only an extremely gentle and euphemistic joke about male-male quasi-seduction ("you'd be my concubines") happening in an explicitly counterfactual world. Is the expectation that the Gen Z boys will respond "LOL good one you magnificent bastard," because boy talk is just like that? Would O'Neill respond that way if somebody joked about his entering concubinage in turn?

What about if they did so in more explicitly rapey language like "your body is my choice," or by describing the "depraved" things they would do to him, and how much he'd like it once they got started?

What about if they did so while also casually showing that they were armed, so that while they're joking about raping him right now, it could definitely real-life happen at any future point if they encounter him? What if it were not an ex-Navy SEAL joking about doing this to high-school kids, but an established MMA champion joking about doing "depraved" things to one of the programmers on TheMotte? Would any given male Mottizen still reliably find this hilarious?

But for the original claim to be true, that rape jokes are just fun male bonding and guys don't take it too seriously, then there should be no gay taboo at all, correct?

The gay taboo is specifically about gay desire. That's why "I'm going to bend you over and fuck you in the ass" is not a viable taunt for straight men to make with each other - because it would easily be answered with "sounds pretty homo dude".

Conversely, inter-male jokes about being the victim of male-on-male sexual violence are pretty common. For example, in my all-male D&D campaign, the party encountered a lascivious older male NPC wizard who was clearly had a crush on the party's young attractive male bard, played by a dude we'll call Adam. Cue endless jokes among the players directed at Adam talking about how he'd better sleep on his back tonight, how his ringpiece felt the next morning, was his anal virginity still intact, etc.. And I should add that this is a pretty progressive group - I'm the closest thing to a right-winger! Needless to say, if this had been a female player - or even a man playing a female character - the players wouldn't have made those same jokes.

Some of that is because they're nice liberal guys who (unlike Nick Fuentes) have internalised the idea that this isn't something decent men joke about, but also because male-on-female rape largely just isn't funny for men in the same way as male-on-male rape or female-on-male rape. To give another case, a male friend of mine was actually in a pretty exploitative gay male relationship at his British boarding school - he (age 14) was the eromenos to an older (17 year old) erastes. And although he's now completely straight-identified, when he's with his old friends from school they make jokes at his expense about it, and he takes them in good humour, even though it was clearly pretty exploitative and illegal.

I appreciate you engaging with this sincerely, but for what it's worth, I think it sort of makes my point that most people who aren't straight males are deeply unaware of the way straight men standardly talk to each other or the underlying intentions behind it. One of my old undergrad students came out in his second year as a trans man, and as an avid soccer player, he switched from the women's to the men's team (I should add, this was a casual college team, not elite sports). But he told me he was absolutely shocked and appalled to hear how the men's team spoke to each other in the (literal!) locker rooms and at the pub afterwards - casual racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. was rampant. I tried to gently suggest to him that this was very much how men interact in all-male settings, and it wasn't probably wasn't the product of malice or genuine animus, instead reflecting transgressive humour, and he should take it as a compliment that he was being fully accepted as "one of the guys." But it was a real culture shock for him, and something he wasn't remotely prepared for when he transitioned.

This is partly because the norms of mixed company are now, and long have been, far more influenced by all-female conversational and social norms than all-male ones. Sure, people were a bit scandalised when Sex and the City came out and showed how women "really talk to each other", but in general, my sense is that there's less of an obvious frame-shift between all-female and mixed company than all-male and mixed company. This is especially true given the major transition in many white-collar professional contexts over the last thirty years from male conversational norms (Pirelli calendar, lots of banter, explicitly cut-throat dynamics) to female ones (superficial positivity, politeness, less overt aggression).

I'd flag that in giving the above spiel, I'm not defending male conversational norms as inherently superior or suggesting that there's nothing wrong with making rape jokes on twitter. A lot of men feel that the "locker room talk" is puerile or gross or dumb, and deliberately avoid it; for my part, at high school I always enjoyed the comparatively polite mixed-company norms of Drama Club more than those of the all-male sports teams (although it was partly because I was a horny straight male teenager and had crushes on various theatre girls). On top of that, men since time immemorial have known that certain kinds of banter or humour were not suitable for mixed company, and people who make rape jokes in front of women are violating male as much as group social norms ("don't scare the hoes" may be a modern coinage but the sentiment is an old one). Of course, social media makes these things complicated insofar as it collapses traditional distinctions of space and group, but I think Fuentes knew exactly what he was doing.

So yeah, as I said, bad memetics for the right, and I'm not surprised it got the reaction it did. The only hill I'm dying on here is that I think that the actual communicative intention behind this kind of humour is typically misconstrued by women as more sincere or literal or psychopathic than it is, whereas men can more readily see that it's taking a kind of entirely performative humour/banter/mock aggression that's common in all-male contexts and employing it outside of them.

The only hill I'm dying on here is that I think that the actual communicative intention behind this kind of humour is typically misconstrued by women as more sincere or literal or psychopathic than it is, whereas men can more readily see that it's taking a kind of entirely performative humour/banter/mock aggression that's common in all-male contexts and employing it outside of them

Thanks for your candor and critical thinking about this! I think the only hill I'd die on is that female proscription of rape humor is similarly rational and grounded in practical safety considerations for female-bodied people in a sexually dimorphic species, not just some outpouring of blue-haired librarian priggishness as various bros would have it elsewhere on this site.

But I'm also a bit skeptical of attempts to place male aggressive humor beyond political analysis because it's supposedly so impartially transgressive and also 100% facetious and harmless. Sure, there are plenty of nuts overreacting to mildly edgy jokes these days, but it also doesn't match my experience to say that men's humor suggests nothing about their underlying views and values because they apply that humor equally to every possible target. I think there are types of harm and violence that men don't joke about, either because it would provoke a threatening response or because they just don't find it funny, and I suspect those gaps probably signal underlying vulnerabilities and anxieties the same way that jokes about raping aged moms aren't as funny to people in the process of becoming weak old ladies (and conversely, a surprising number of Twitter feminists turned out to enjoy jokes about assaulting Republican women and TERFS over the past few years). So it does seem worth exploring the contours a little. I also think that transgressiveness and dominance/aggression are two separate things - I know humorists who are wildly transgressive but still don't make any jokes of the dick-swinging, put-down sort - so just pointing out that men love breaking rules doesn't fully account for what makes women uneasy about YOUR BODY MY CHOICE.

Two follow-up questions: do men think it's funny to joke about raping each other's daughters, the way it's funny to joke about raping moms? I feel like the former isn't as common. Why? How about each other's sons?

Second, there are plenty of humorless men out there (I've met some of them!). When a guy has no sense of humor, how does his participation in locker-room banter usually fall flat? Does he go too far? Not far enough? Not in the right direction?

I think @Amadan has answered some of this, and I agree with everything he says, but just to add a couple of follow-ups...

do men think it's funny to joke about raping each other's daughters, the way it's funny to joke about raping moms?

Absolutely not, and interestingly in every 'locker room' context I've been in, joking about someone's kids in any negative way (not even just sexual) would code as deeply taboo. Here's a funny scene touching on that idea from In Bruges. I'm not exactly sure why it's taboo, when mothers are fair game, but jokes about someone's kids are ugly or dumb or gay would come across very poorly.

When a guy has no sense of humor, how does his participation in locker-room banter usually fall flat? Does he go too far? Not far enough?

I think it's fair to read a lot of this form of male-bonding as a kind of test or trial for male-coded social skills - being able to come up with a good clapback, knowing what's going too far, knowing how to insult someone in a way that they will correctly interpret as affectionate.* I think men who struggle with locker-room talk fall into two main camps. The first are those who can handle the social dynamics but don't like the mock aggression, and to oversimplify, they become theatre/art/literature club kids. The second are those who ASD kids who don't get the complex social dynamics. They'll tend to filter out into the predictable science, math, and engineering clubs.

I've framed it in terms of high school, but I really think this kind of male behaviour really gets going around puberty in high-testosterone environments, specifically sports teams, and it filters out some people from male sports in general (not coincidentally, the boys on top of the sports hierarchy tend to be on top of the male high school hierarchy in general). Nonetheless, it persists into adulthood in similarly all-male and high testosterone contexts, and whenever you get a group of men of any age together with alcohol and an absence of women, it will tend to manifest. Again, there will be some guys for whom this is more natural, and others who find it uncomfortable, so they'll tend to just change the subject or shift the vibe.

And also to clarify re this:

I'm also a bit skeptical of attempts to place male aggressive humor beyond political analysis because it's supposedly so impartially transgressive and also 100% facetious and harmless.

@Amadan completely nailed my position. I'm not saying it's beyond political analysis - that's what I'm trying to do, through giving it a genealogy. I also think Fuentes is knowingly violating the norms here to get a reaction. But I also think a lot of the commentary I've seen from women involves a straightforward epistemic mistake in interpreting his intention and failing to contextualise it in the background of male-coded banter. As you note, there are practical reasons why women have a hair-trigger sensitivity to any kind of rape humour, but that's also what Fuentes is relying on.

I'm not exactly sure why it's taboo, when mothers are fair game, but jokes about someone's kids are ugly or dumb or gay would come across very poorly.

Yeah, I think this is what I meant by making humor subject to "political analysis": not hand-wringing that rape jokes mean you're a rapist, but acknowledging that a group's perception of what's funny vs. unfunny could indicate something important about their underlying sentiments and desires, and that it's fair to investigate those sentiments by close-reading the jokes. Ironically, the threat of over-reading is probably what provokes some of the compensatory under-reading here, but there must be some level of valid interpretation between "jokes are a straightforward statement of intention" and "jokes mean literally nothing about anything."

(For instance, on why mama jokes are funny but daughter jokes aren't-- is it possible that most men have a little bit of underlying resentment/ contempt for older women, including their moms, that makes it a teeeeny bit viscerally enjoyable to imagine them being put in their place or subjected to male dominance, whereas having a beloved daughter demeaned is just straightforwardly painful?)

I think men who struggle with locker-room talk fall into two main camps. The first are those who can handle the social dynamics but don't like the mock aggression, and to oversimplify, they become theatre/art/literature club kids. The second are those who ASD kids who don't get the complex social dynamics.

That's really interesting: when I asked the question I was thinking about a certain type of dumb and self-serious but also very athletic "jughead"-style guy that seems both common in sporty contexts and reasonably socially successful. Having known those folks in their administrative and bureaucratic afterlives, they seem too rigid, touchy and literal-minded to ever have been great at verbal sparring, but that's just from mixed-company observations. Are successful jocks really witty and transgressive with other men? I'm trying to imagine what that would even sound like.

More comments

But I'm also a bit skeptical of attempts to place male aggressive humor beyond political analysis because it's supposedly so impartially transgressive and also 100% facetious and harmless.

Isn't political analysis exactly what @doglatine was doing? I didn't read him as saying male aggressive humor is 100% facetious and harmless; it's that the seriousness and harmfulness is very context-sensitive. Nick Fuentes's "joke" was intentionally meant to freak out liberal women who right now are already freaking out over Trump's election, and to the degree it's not serious, he's capitalizing on the fact that so many women will take it seriously. Nick Fuentes is an asshole (because people who go out of their way to poke people in the eye are always assholes) for verbalizing something that would be a joke between men in private but will be read as a threat if voiced in public. Locker room jokes about banging your mom are funny (for a certain kind of man) in the locker room; made on Twitter, you'll get people reading you as sincerely threatening to rape someone's mom, and while a certain kind of man will find that funny too, it's not at all the same kind of humor.

I know humorists who are wildly transgressive but still don't make any jokes of the dick-swinging, put-down sort - so just pointing out that men love breaking rules doesn't fully account for what makes women uneasy about YOUR BODY MY CHOICE.

This is true, and there are a lot of men who don't like put-down banter, would not find "your body, my choice" amusing, and most roll their eyes at such jokes. But the difference here is that a man will still understand that it's "boys being boys" and just roll his eyes, whereas to a woman, the very idea of "boys being boys" seems to excuse and justify such humor, which they find morally reprehensible and threatening. A lot us (speaking as the sort of man who doesn't particularly like the locker room stuff) sense that women, if they had the power to do so, would love to enter the locker room and tell us "You can't do that." How often have I read an overwrought think-piece by a liberal (often single) mother about her teenage sons, whom she loves dearly but she's absolutely terrified that they will become those sorts of boys - the sort of boys who tell locker-room jokes, the sorts of boys who roll their eyes when she's haranguing them about the Patriarchy, the sorts of boys who will become rapists!!!

Two follow-up questions: do men think it's funny to joke about raping each other's daughters, the way it's funny to joke about raping moms? I feel like the former isn't as common. Why? How about each other's sons?

I first want to say, as one of those men @doglatine mentions who thinks locker room humor is puerile, that you may be overestimating just how common and blatant such jokes are. Having been in plenty of male environments, yes, I've heard lots of crude humor and innuendos that wouldn't be voiced around women, but "I'm gonna fuck your mom" isn't really something I hear a lot. I'd guess it's more of an online gamer thing (the same sort of crowd that likes dropping n-bombs and "faggot" just to try to distress their opponents). But yeah, to the degree that someone might joke about banging someone else's mom, "mom jokes" are an ancient and well-understood form of low humor that no one really takes seriously. Jokes about banging your daughter are a lot more aggressive and threatening - not threatening in the sense that you'd likely believe they really intended to rape your daughter, but threatening in the sense that the message is not funny. The message is "You're such a pussy I could rape your daughter and you wouldn't be able to stop me." So no, a man wouldn't find that funny.

Threatening to rape your son would be the same, with the added implication that your son is gay (or will be a "bottom" for a dominant man), so you'd be explicitly insulting both the father's manhood and his son's.

Indeed, when in mixed company, men tend to refrain from raunchy or edgy jokes, risqué locker room-adjacent topics, or offering a glimpse of their actual opinion on a potentially controversial issue, just as one might around children or the Thought Police.

In addition, on a more subtle basis, men tend to code-switch from male-only company to when one or more woman is present, catering to women’s sensibilities. A lot of times this is subconscious; men might not even realize they’re doing it.

Around women, the average man deploys softer, more euphemistic language than he would use when in the company of just other men, lest he commit the mortal sin of offending a woman or hurting her feelings. For example, “fucking” or “banging” often becomes “hooking up with” or “sleeping with.” If in just the company of other men, one of my male friends unironically used the phrase “sleeping with” as an euphemism for sex, I’d be concerned that he recently suffered a concussion, is growing a brain tumor, is developing ultra-early dementia, or got body-snatched by an alien.

[cw: all links involve pretty crude jokes with audio]

Do locker-room lads generally respond with twinkling eyes...

I don't think it's universal, but there's absolutely some spaces where variants of gay chicken that get that direction. It's... actually kinda awkward in mixed-orientation environments, especially where not everyone knows each other's orientation is common knowledge (conversation starts at 20:00, relevant bit continuing to 21:30).

Just in the last two weeks, I've had a male co-volunteer at an IRL project I've helped with set up,and continue a joke where the punchline involved him asking me to punch his v-card, and me responding 'I'd have to buy you dinner after', and him laughing at it. I'm pretty sure he's straight? But it's an education-focused IRL project, so it's not like I'm out, there, anyway.

((That said, even those spaces require pretty specific levels of familiarity and have other specific taboos; Fuentes, here, is just being an ass.))

A sincere question: if sexual-assault jokes are an essential and universal part of male bonding, do gay dudes joke about raping each other's dads?

Uh... at least for 'fucked your mom' level jokes, absolutely positively yes.

Uh... at least for 'fucked your mom' level jokes, absolutely positively yes.

Those are pretty funny, and also it's interesting that they are so very, very delicate about it: the language is "I want to flirt with your dad" and "I did your dad," both of which are like 5th-grade starter-pack level in the scale of "fucked your mom" jokes. So maybe it will evolve all the way to where a dude can joke about how another guy's dad moaned as he double-fisted him last night, who knows?

While we're in this media sphere, another thing I've been genuinely curious about: what's the standard level of sexual violence theming in gay porn (of the sort actually made for gay men)? Like, does popular gay porn do "dumb twink rammed until he CAN'T WALK STRAIGHT" or "Ten portly bears PUNISH this bratty man's BLEEDING ASSHOLE while he begs" style videos at the same rate as straight porn, and are there similar levels of theming about men getting choked and hit, getting stuck in tight places and begging for help, having guys cum on their face and chest, etc., as you see in videos about male sex with women?

... the language is "I want to flirt with your dad" and "I did your dad," both of which are like 5th-grade starter-pack level in the scale of "fucked your mom" jokes.

That, uh, says as much about what I'm willing to link (and what can be posted on youtube/twitch/yada) as much as it does about behaviors in certain social circles. I'll admit I haven't seen double-fisting specifically brought to offer, but neither does it stop at teabagging jokes.

While we're in this media sphere, another thing I've been genuinely curious about: what's the standard level of sexual violence theming in gay porn (of the sort actually made for gay men)?

I think aoiislove overstates the extent it shows up in all gay male sexuality, but it's definitely present, and pretty common. It's a little hard to calculate exactly, because there's a lot of stuff that's sexual violence to women and also has gay men lining up (sometimes literally) to receive. (and conversely, a few things that are more appalling to gay guys.)

Like, does popular gay porn do "dumb twink rammed until he CAN'T WALK STRAIGHT" or "Ten portly bears PUNISH this bratty man's BLEEDING ASSHOLE while he begs" style videos at the same rate as straight porn

Can't walk straight, definitely, along with a lot of similar stuff ('guts rearranged' is popular right now, 'wrecks hole' been along since before I knew I was bi, sometimes just 'dominates' or even just outright 'bullies'). Ten portly bears definitely, and while it's a little hard as a direct comparison because there's a lot of gay guys for whom that sounds like a great start to a Friday night, there's enough where it's not supposed to be attractive or appealing directly that is pretty comparable. Bleeding is a bit unusual: there's commercial restrictions for mainstream credit card sites that are more intended for actual knives-and-beatings BDSM edgeplay, but mainstream merchants still avoid it. The closest common gay male porn term would probably be some variant of 'gape'.

and are there similar levels of theming about men getting choked and hit,

Yeah. Not my thing, but slapping, choking (with hands or dick), hitting, spitting, markings, comically oversized sex toys, (usually fake) 'insufficient lube', that sort of rough sex has enough of a following you have to put some effort on mainstream sites to avoid it.

... getting stuck in tight places and begging for help, having guys cum on their face and chest...

These ones are hard to compare directly. The latter in particular is extremely common ('painting', straight-up bukkake), but it's... probably not something most people think about as sexual violence?

I'll point to Braeburned's Room 609 (llama guy puts himself in a hole in a door, gets eiffel tower'd by his roommate and whoever his roommate taps on an app to take the other side) comic as an example of the problem: it's easy to frame what's effectively a gay-male-variant of the 'free use' fantasy that in its het form is very much built around ignoring women's consent and physical integrity... but Braeburned and quite a large portion of the fans of the series are preferentially bottoms, and even in his other comics that have a guy getting a surprise train run on them (eg Gay For Play, where the main character gets roped into a football team prank that ends up... where you'd expect) can credibly make it seem consenting because it's pretty clear the author would love it. That's a furry example, but there are non-furry and conventional-porn ones, just harder to track down names and personalities involved.

That's not to say clearly eroticized sexual violence using these themes is unusual -- I'll point to NakedSav's "Marked Prey" as one that's very much presented from an mdom rather than msub perspective, and the msub side is about as degrading as the author's willing to go. It definitely shows up as a thing in certain types of gay-for-pay or masc4masc genre 'normal' porn. But it may not be useful as a metric, compared to other traits in the work.

Stuck in tight places is kinda a goofy 'plot', even by porn plot standards, and thus pretty rare, but it definitely shows up, including the begging (or at least pretense of it for a couple seconds). There's a mostly-gay-specific thing about (ruiadri just posted a great one today!) about making a sub paint themselves, but I dunno what the comparable het thing would be outside of pegging/pretty heavy femdom.

I'm late responding, but just wanted to say that it's been a while since I read anything so solidly info-dense and enlightening. Wish I could find more deep dives into the entirely foreign and fascinating culture of gay porn. Thank you for this!

Talking about fucking someone’s mom isn’t rape. It is about seducing.

Both of those types exist (with "seducing" implying the mom's a slut), and the ones implying she's a literal whore are pretty common too.

I'm not convinced that there is anything "to get" in this case. Its a simple expression of "boo outgroup" where Fuentes' "outgroup" is women in general and liberal women in particular. Make of that what you will.

Contrast this with the classical form of the Your Momma or Dead Baby joke where the target of the joke is invited to respond and then recieves a subversive rejoinder in the form of the punchline.

Similarly, young men on voicechat on videogames have been talking about fucking each others' moms in various depraved ways for decades, while lots of women experience this as traumatising aggression. It's clearly a gendered phenomenon, potentially even a biological one - it wouldn't surprise me if we found that isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea where men bond with "your momma" jokes.

There's an (unfortunately incomplete) cuneiform tablet dating back to 1500 B.C. that includes, among other jokes, "[...] of your mother is by the one who has intercourse with her. Who is it?"

Sadly, the fragmented tablet does not include the punchline, although given the other jokes/riddles, it presumably would have lost something in the translation.

I agree with this.

Even relatively feminine men will absolutely roast each other in male-only spaces. Playful teasing, joking boundary-pushing, and obviously your momma jokes are everywhere, when you get men together in a space that doesn't include women.

This is why Trump's "it was just locker room talk" defense for the pussy tape in 2016 seemed to work for him: that kind of horny bravado is just what men get up to with each other.

But when women come into the space, everything changes. Women very much seem to hate the idea that men alter their behavior when they come around. But they do. And the reason why men chill out when women come in isn't because they are ashamed of their behavior, or are trying to hide something. It's a mark of respect: they acknowledge that women aren't into it and find it discomfiting, and respect this preference by choosing not to engage in it around them. It's sort of like how I might use profanity while talking to my friends, but would never do so when visiting my mom.

I'm a big defender of male-only spaces and organizations, because we very much need for men to have an outlet to bond over this stuff. Bottling it up or refusing to give men the ability to bond with other men doesn't help -- in fact, it makes it more likely that guys will try to use it to bond with women.

And bonding with women over this stuff sometimes works! 'Negging', as a complaint, gets a lot of airtime. But there's a great deal of the phenomenon that's simply a part of how people flirt. Contrary to the popular interpretation, playful negging isn't about trying to genuinely hurt someone's self-esteem. What it does is create a sense of intimacy, by making statements that would be totally uncalled-for if made by a total stranger, and playfully dancing around the contradiction that the people are strangers. And it in fact presents a theoretical possibility of threat! But the point that's being made is that the man is so unwilling to pose a threat to the woman that the idea of him posing a threat to her is a big joke. He playfully insults because he's profoundly not interested in really insulting or threatening, and if it really is playful and there's chemistry, healthy, well-adjusted women enjoy the game. I have flirting level -100, so I'll refrain from giving an example.

This is fundamentally what men are doing with each other when they bond like this: they're accentuating the intimacy they feel for each other by demonstrating that they're so close and their bond is so tight, they can insult each other and engage in dominance behavior without any real threat. It's an indication that these men are so utterly far from threatening each other that even the concept of threatening each other is a massive joke that people find hilarious because of its implausibility. (This is the same reason why straight men engage in boundary-pushing claims of homosexuality -- they're so straight that even the concept of having sex with each other is an implausible joke. I presume this is one of those things that would really annoy a gay man if he happened to be present.)

The phrase I've seen to describe the differences between male and female bonding is that "men will insult your mother and have your back, women will tell you that you're beautiful and stab you in it." 'Toxic positivity', insofar as it exists, is mostly a phenomenon of female bonding styles being applied to broader social environments. 'Toxic masculinity', particularly the old complaints about angry gamer boys making puerile jokes, comes from these forms of male bonding being taken too far, and applied by skill-less idiots to environments of actual competition, or brought out in mixed company.

That's not to say that men can't engage in very positive, productive conversations with a lot of affection -- or that women can't be openly insulting. But there are differences in communication styles that reflect how men are theoretically threats to each other and to women for social power or attention, and this conceptual threat must be managed and minimized by close friends to the point of humor. The big problem is when this humor escapes the male-only and flirting contexts where it's effective, or is received poorly by people who don't want it or find it alienating.

If you think I lack for evidence for this just-so story, go look at the youtube comments for a male-oriented video and witness the "bro really took this too far," "least addicted gamer," "it's not that deep" comments, and then go look at a female-oriented video and witness the "OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO BEAUTIFUL," "Dr. So-and-so is so warm and helpful with such a great bedside manner ," "awwwwwww Butter the cat is such a cutie" comments.

This is fundamentally what men are doing with each other when they bond like this: they're accentuating the intimacy they feel for each other by demonstrating that they're so close and their bond is so tight, they can insult each other and engage in dominance behavior without any real threat.

Late to the party, but Scott refers to the phenomenon you're describing as "countersignalling". Essentially, "I trust you enough that I can insult you, knowing that you'll understand no real malice is intended and you'll take it in good humour". Zizek argues that ribald jokes of this kind are vital for defusing tensions between members of warring ethnic groups.

I agree with most of this, but I feel like some male shit-talking and joking, at least in a group setting, also has an element of faux-combat. Constantly challenging each other is a form of play-fighting, but it's also a test - someone who regularly can't come up with a comeback or simply shuts down will eventually lose status and become more likely to be simply dominated by the others.

Yeah, sometimes that is the case, depending on the structure and personalities of the friend group. What I've outlined is how it tends to be in my own friend groups, which have been very nerdy, and tended towards playfulness and silliness rather than combativeness and dominance-testing.

It can be a form of bonding, but it's also something a lot of men just tolerate because that's just how the spaces are and you have to tolerate it if you want to play certain games. Im not sure what the ratio would be (curious now that I've thought up the hypothetical) but if male gamers were given a choice to move over to identical platforms minus 'i had sex with your mom' edgelords, I think the Exodus would be pretty sizable.

All that to say I agree it is more of a male phenomenon, but it does code as gross and offensive to even a lot of them who are found in those spaces

Like everything else unpleasant in society, this is downstream of modern gaming matchmaking.

When you're spending hours in a specific server going back and forth with someone, or playing with your own friends, the behavior isn't bad because you've built up a relationship. It's not a big deal to insult someone because somewhere in the next hour they'll land a good shot on you and can have any bad feeling erased with catharsis at your outraged stream of profanity. And both of you can be honest with your feelings rather than bottling them up.

When you're in a skill-based zero-player-choice matchmaking world where you interact with any given person for 20 minutes tops before they disappear into the endless sea of players, there's no time to develop that relationship and it's just a stream of unrelated people yelling awful things at you.

And both of you can be honest with your feelings rather than bottling them up.

Never believed this nugget of folk psychology. If emotions were truly something that are better dealt with outbursts of profanity rather than "bottled up", it would imply people most eager to use profanity and insults would be the most emotionally balanced. After all, if the folk theory is right, they should have nothing bottled up because they regularly let it all out? In my experience, it is rather the other way around. It is the constantly decently mannered, outwardly respectful people who are most likely to show good quality of character, are more likely to do genuinely nice things and avoid gossip, rude comments and dominance plays. More constant the decent behavior, more honest the character. More profanity-prone person, less likely you want to stay around them.

It is an observation that plays nicely with CBT that I've been exposed to: emotions are more like habits or a muscle than pressure cylinders you can't control: the purpose of the therapy is to build habit of not entering the destructive or unproductive mental states. Not far-fetched that embracing a behavior playfully makes it easier to habitually access associated mental space in other context.

If emotions were truly something that are better dealt with outbursts of profanity rather than "bottled up", it would imply people most eager to use profanity and insults would be the most emotionally balanced.

It wouldn't, because "not bottling up" doesn't mean you have to take the entire bottom of the bottle away.

I think Ctrl-Alt-Del spoke for a lot of gamers with its comic about how to deal with those sorts of irritating players.

The incoming administration has promised to punt the issue of abortion to the States and I hope they go one step further and enshrine this punt with a Constitutional amendment that would keep the federal government out of the business altogether, including encouraging or discouraging States or individuals via funding, services, etc. And probably also prohibiting States from punishing abortion tourists in any way.

There are so many important issues of geopolitics and energy and trade and I'm so fucking tired of this issue being at the top of mind every single national election (for literally my entire life and I'm over 40!!!), and half the electorate being one-issue voters about it so you can't even have a real conversation with them about anything else.

It might also help heal relations between the sexes but I won't bet on that, let's not get too greedy now.

Such an amendment would discredit the government for obvious reasons. The abortion issue is a reductio ad absurdum of democracy. Apparently the electorate cannot even agree to prohibit the industrialized slaughter of infants.

Such an amendment would discredit the government for obvious reasons.

Not obvious to me, can you elaborate? I personally think that there doesn't need to be an amendment because the federal government doesn't have authority to restrict abortion anyways, but I don't see how it would be bad to include an amendment to explicitly prohibit it.

The political environment isn’t at all conducive to it, but even under a narrow reading of federal powers the feds could prohibit interstate traffic in abortifacients or crossing state lines to obtain an abortion.

Interstate traffic in abortifacients yes, prohibiting "crossing state lines to obtain an abortion" is already a stretch, though nothing like the utter goatse of Wickard v. Fillburn.

It is obviously the duty of the government to prevent its own people, and particularly children, from being murdered.

But it's not obvious that a fetus a couple of weeks old is a child.

Murder is not a federal crime (with some special-case exceptions)

I think Trump already started shanking the pro-life right with his comment about how great IVF is. That was a preemptive move.

It remains to be seen how his administration handles the inevitable push for a federal abortion ban.

Looking at the abortion ballot results at a state level, proposing abortion legislation at the federal level seems like obvious suicide for the Republican party.

And yet there is a large part of the base that has been reliably turning out and will feel jilted if the GOP abandons them.

No they won't. There is a sizeable grifting industry which are jilted because Trump shut off a big spigot which they had been worthlessly living off of for decades. They have been attempting to mobilize others to also feel like they were "jilted" by Trump giving them their biggest win ever, but it has so far failed spectacularly.

This "large part" of the base can't stop modest abortion protections from being added to state constitutions in deep red states, so claiming after they were handed the biggest win they've ever had they're suddenly owed something like a nationwide abortion ban even if it cost Trump his entire mandate is pretty incredible to be honest.

The pro-lifers should be upset they got nothing after giving hundreds of millions to the useless GOP and a pro-life grifter class for decades. Focusing their ire on Trump after he got Roe v. Wade overturned is misplaced.

The pro-life right is also split on the question of a federal ban. Some want to push for one, some would push for one if they thought it were politically feasible (but they recognize it’s not), and some think the issue should belong to the states, period. When even the pro-lifers are split like this, the odds that a federal ban even makes it through one house of Congress is basically nil.

Agreed, and in the mean time there are a lot of pro lifers, including myself, who (as @Bleep points out) dont feel "jilted" as much as they are happy to take the overturning of Roe v Wade as a win

I think just as a matter of principle, we need to prevent commerce clause abuse and the abuse of federal funding which both end up being used as a back door way to force states to do whatever the federal government wants them to. As it stands the government can dictate through federal funding that roads be marked for bike lanes, that schools must teach LGBTQ narratives, that the state can regulate environmental protections on products that have never and will never leave their state of origin. It’s ridiculous.

As it stands the government can dictate through federal funding that roads be marked for bike lanes

What's the alternative here? That the federal government be banned from attaching any conditions to any funding given to states? How would that even work?

The alternative would be to not hold funds hostage. You want bike lanes, pass a law making bike lanes and fund them. As a completely separate thing. What happens often is that the money for I.e highways is contingent on X miles of bike lanes. Or school funding rests on the enactment of policies like trans rights and trans students in women’s restrooms.

Here's how it would work

The above is a link to Saving Congress from Itself which is a wonderful book by William F. Buckely's brother. In many ways, he was far more accomplished than his more famous brother.

Anyway, the TLDR is that Congress has to start doing top level only block grants to the state. State's bundle together all of the federal funding requests they have and send it to Washington. Congress votes on a straight YES or NO to providing that funding. If they want to adjust the number, they only adjust the top line number (say from $10bn to $9.5 bn or what have you). There's no ability to say "This $5m slice has to go towards the LGBTQ bike lane in downtown San Antoino." Nope, it's just one, big number.

The result is that states get A LOT more leeway in what and how they spend their money. Also, there would be less bureaucracy as the endless "reports" on the use of funds would vanish. The result of this result is you'd start to see states that are fundamentally run better probably attract citizens from other states. The results of that result (result depth level: 3) is that we'd probably end up seeing even more stark disparities in outcomes. For instance, most of the states with the worst obesity, illiteracy, and high school graduation rates are in the Deep South or are those with sparse populations generally (WV and one of the Dakotas, IIRC). I'd expect this to continue and accelerate with a "Block Grants Only" approach.

But the result of that result (!), I think, would be that some states effectively become giant national parks with almost zero population. West Virginia, for instance, is now a net mortality state, meaning that more people die and leave the state than are born / move into it. Eastern West Virginia, south of the panhandle that includes Martinsburg and Charles Town, is one of the least densely populated places in the country - it's literally up there with Montana and Wyoming in the lower 48.

Would this be a good or bad thing? That's up to you to decide.

If you really want federalism, the federal government should be made to raise less taxes. Ideally the federal government shouldn't be able to tax citizens directly and should tax only the states. States would raise their own money to e.g. build roads.

Of course that's not really feasible either, not even if everybody really wanted it, because the federal government can print money or get loans from abroad, whereas the states cannot.

Inasmuch as there's a breakdown in relations between sexes, I don't think you repair that without making abortion (at least during the first trimester) widely available.

I think the next 20 years is going to give us hard evidence on:

  1. Is civil marriage necessary for society to function / is long term civil marriage actually a huge benefit to spouses and children?
  2. Is sexual discipline far more valuable (maybe even necessary) than the whole of society has assumed since the late 1960s.

My prediction (which is heavily biased due to my value system): Couples that get married and stay married will become something like a new aristocracy. Generational wealth will literally be as easy as not cheating on your wife. Children with stable two parent households will not only outcompete their peers, but will have a compounding advantage by their age of majority.

Unwed single mothers, especially those who give birth before about 25, will become wards of the state to an even more extreme degree. Sadly, I think that state provided support will become so egregious that a single mother looking to get married would be committing economic suicide outside of finding a literal prince charming who already has the financial resources to subsume paying for everything.

Another way of summing this up; Some part of society will self-select to sexual and mating habits that look like the 1950s, while another, probably larger part will accelerate to poly-orgy levels of libertinism. My assumption is that the former will control an incredibly disproportionate level of wealth and political control. This is all very Matrix-y; The lowerclass in 2045 in America will be face tattooed Zi/Zirs wired into machines 24/7 with a host of pharmacological cocktails coursing through their veins. Sexual gratification options will be nonstop both in advertisement and usage. The upperclass will simply be everyone who can say "No" for a while and unplug.

Generational wealth will literally be as easy as not cheating on your wife.

I think they call this "a financial path to home ownership" these days.

the next 20 years is going to give us hard evidence

Hard evidence has already been provided.

For 1, we already know that being in a single-parent household is detrimental to average outcomes. Now, to what degree this is because the children are obviously going to possess the genes of someone who becomes a single mother (or single father) is another story- apples don't necessarily fall far from trees, and not being able to stick with a marriage is an indictment either of one's time preference or one's general ability to select a partner long-term over short-term concerns. Relative lack of resources for childhood development is another thing that can cause this, since single-family homes are required for self-development not limited to what doesn't make a lot of noise or take up that much space to practice (you aren't maintaining a vehicle, practicing an instrument, etc. in a two-bedroom apartment, so what you can get up to -> the ways these types of children develop their minds are more limited) and it's not 1980 where you could afford one of those on a single income.

For 2... well, there's a massive two-movies-one-screen effect that's been going on for the last 60 years about sexual ethics. The short version is that the people who don't need sexual ethics for the sake of sexual ethics (and their "sexual ethics" comes more from practical constraints than anything handed down from on high) came to power and re-made marriage laws in their own image. These are people who choose a life partner based on an utterly childish conception of love an intent and ability to align their wills to each other rather than just because he's rich/she's hot. And it's very difficult to determine who's saying what, and who's pushing which politics, and why- I don't think there's been a concerted effort to obfuscate this information (though certain traditionalist and progressive types try their best, especially if there's a religion/woke involved), but the results aren't meaningfully distinct from that.

Problem is, they shouldn't ever have insisted on that being marriage (even though the room temperature of the '60s and '70s made that kind of unavoidable), and considered that (before deciding to explode everything) this a-sexual mode of love might be technically ideal but is not, in fact, normal. And they decided to ban certain kinds of behaviors based on the fact that men and women operating in this mode are equal- so obviously, she should get half of the assets in the no-fault divorce, because people who don't/can't get along outside of their normal gender roles don't get married. Obviously. [Just ignore that 50% total divorce rate; it's not like that combined with the sex the resources/custody in the divorce tend to more often be awarded to trivially repudiate that thesis.]

Therefore, men and women who don't actually like each other but want to get married for other reasons probably need to be staring down the barrel of society's shotgun a little more than they already do for better societal outcomes (though at the same time, be provided carrots- men and women need to be marrying much earlier than they already do for family formation reasons and fixing that is both inextricably linked to this problem and is the harder of the two). Men and women who don't need marriage, by contrast, shouldn't get married, nor should the State treat them as if they were (as they do in some countries).

Men and women aren't equal except for the ones that are. A default plus an opt out for the people sufficiently informed/capable is what can work- but that requires a populace disciplined enough (or distracted enough) to keep that balance.

I think I agree with you? I find your prose to be a little serpentine and hard to follow at times.

The short version is that the people who don't need sexual ethics for the sake of sexual ethics (and their "sexual ethics" comes more from practical constraints than anything handed down from on high) came to power and re-made marriage laws in their own image.

Could I request you try rephrasing this so that I can better understand. Again, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page.

Sure.

I think the "new" post-Sexual Revolution sexual ethics were made by people who didn't, or couldn't, recognize that most relationships are at least a little dysfunctional (we were very rich at the time, which can cover up a great deal of bad in a relationship- no fights about cooking if you can just afford takeout, after all- and sex was the least risky it's ever been in history due to reliable hormonal birth control and no incurable STD of consequence). When the pro-SR people are talking about "liberation" [but only pre-1980; post-1980 the actors change as the below takes effect], this is what they're talking about.

But if you give that group power, they enshrine their autistic/childish/unrealistic views of how sex and relationships (and by extension, men and women) operate into law. And the problem with that is the same one as it was with legal equality- it just tilts the playing field in favor of the sex whose advantages were most illegible to the system (and so abuse of those advantages stopped being controllable, creating the problems we have now).

The trick, then, is in implementing that inequality/equity- making sure the people who do need those rules obey them (and are protected by them in return), and making sure the people who don't need those rules do not have to (but are not).

Thank you!

I think this change would make its availability feel less precarious than it does now.

It's trolling, and trolling designed to validate Democratic views of the nastiness of the other side, further demonstrating that Fuentes is controlled opposition.

That's entirely separate from the fact that the "body autonomy" argument is wholly fake. "Body autonomy" refers abortion and nothing more. Oh, bodily autonomy... so I can take drugs. Marijuana... too easy. Cocaine? Heroin? Testosterone? Penicillin? Oh, that's different is it? OK, then I can choose what medical treatments I have... including vaccination? Including the COVID vax? Ah, different again. Bodily autonomy is a fake argument because in practice nothing else follows from it aside from abortion.

There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.

What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean? As you said yourself, "bodily autonomy" arguments are vapid. Laws are made that govern this type of stuff. It' already 'your body, my choice' and it always has been. Why sanctify the democrat crocodile tears by buying into the idea that 'your body, my choice' is a nasty thing to say? Oh, you can't have unprotected sex and then murder a baby to rid yourself of the consequences of your good time? Boohoo.

Visceral, seething hatred is not license to ignore the rules.

90 days this time.

There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.

Of course not. The nasty thing is agreeing to and promoting their disingenuous framing, as Fuentes did here.

And what framing is that? That the republicans are going to control women's bodies? Isn't that what they are doing?

No more than any government policy controls anyone's body. In fact, the slogan is an extreme red herring on the abortion issue, as it's designed to obscure that another body is involved (the child being murdered).

No more than any government policy controls anyone's body

That's what I've already said.

In fact, the slogan is an extreme red herring on the abortion issue, as it's designed to obscure that another body is involved (the child being murdered).

If that's what you thought was nasty about it that's fine. I don't think that's what other people found nasty about it though. I mean, do you?

It obviously isn't why leftists are offended, but I do think it's why pro-lifers aren't jumping up to defend him. As for the leftists' offense - that's obviously the intent; it's an act of trolling, but more specifically, it's playacting as the cartoon villain that abortionists want. It's the equivalent of "celebrating" a breakthrough against affirmative action by cackling evilly and going "now we can finally keep the black man down forever".

The unborn child isn't "another body" until you can separate them and the mother and have them both live, or otherwise enact your desire of protecting the child without involving the mother's body in it.

The state claiming ownership of the unborn child is worse than communism, because communism at least claims things that are not parts of pther people's bodies.

the state isn't claiming ownership of the unborn when they say you can't kill them anymore than they claim ownership of any random adult when they say other adults can't murder them

and the state already claims ownership of your own body even if there is no two body problem, from laws against suicide to laws against consumption of drugs, etc.

it is only this issue where we carve out the exception; seriously, the privacy right concoction used in Roe v. Wade is unhelpful to individuals in any other context

Yes, the law against suicide is a violation of self-ownership as well. We just let it slide because killing yourself makes even less sense to most in the first place than killing your unborn child, so few are threatened by the law. Also obligatory "what are they gonna do, arrest my corpse?".

Drugs we ban because no one wants to become a degenerated drug addict, yet people do, so we infer that people need help staying away from drugs. Also, the problem of violent junkies.

But at the end of the day it is only a lizardman's constant who is pro-life on basis of "saving human lives" (and can be argued with about what a human life is and how far should we go saving them). The rest, I assume, are using abortion bans as a tool to enforce their preferred monogamy-for-life-for-the-purposes-of-procreation social model. I see no point arguing. I wish women were as gung-ho as right-wing men about buying guns and chanting "no step on snake".

More comments

There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.

Yes there is. Nasty is as nasty does.

I have a very hard time believing that you don't understand why this is a nasty thing to say, or why people might interpret it that way. But, taking you at your word, please consider the implications of the phrase in a sexual context.

"Oh, you don't want to have sex? Boohoo"

I'm failing to see the relation. Being unable to have sex without taking responsibility for either contraception or the consequences of unprotected sex are not the same as being forced to have sex.

Sure, and what do you think the implications of the phrase are? In your interpretation, does 'my choice' have a hard limit at exactly the point you think is reasonable to mock (unforced pregnancies) and no further?

If I came up to you and said 'your money, mine now' you would not assume that I meant if you broke a particular clause in a contract that you would be subject to financial penalties. I think the overwhelming interpretation would be 'i control your money in every way'.

Let me ask you this: do you think Fuentes is saying the phrase as a neutral statement of fact, or is he saying it intentionally to rile people up? Maybe that answer goes toward explaining my point. No 'democrat crocodile tears' here.

If I came up to you and said 'your money, mine now' you would not assume that I meant if you broke a particular clause in a contract that you would be subject to financial penalties. I think the overwhelming interpretation would be 'i control your money in every way'.

If a libertarian, taxation is theft, guy just lost the presidential race after running on the slogan 'Your money, is yours' and then somebody tweeted 'your money, mine now', I think the overwhelming interpretation of the tweet would be that it is a joke about taxation being theft.

Right, but all the other implications don't suddenly just disappear. The phrase still means what it means. I believe almost everyone would agree that 'your money is yours' has a vaguely positive connotation absent any context, whereas the reverse is true for the 2nd phrase. It might have additional meaning based on the backstory of the presidential race, but the connotations remain.

I think the implication of the phrase is: Abortionists made a big deal about this election being about abortion. Their slogan has long been "my body, my choice". They lost. Fuentes makes fun of them by saying "your body, my choice".

Assuming there's more to it, be that a conspiracy by the federal government to make more women vote democrat, or that Fuentes is actually trying to express his belief that he can rape all women, seems rather far fetched and silly compared to the alternative I just gave.

Let me ask you this: do you think Fuentes is saying the phrase as a neutral statement of fact, or is he saying it intentionally to rile people up? Maybe that answer goes toward explaining my point.

He is obviously saying it to mock and rile people up. Why would that go towards explaining your point?

Why do you insist that every statement has to be 100% serious and taken literally? It can be true simultaneously that he is not expressing a true belief that he has the right to rape all women, but that that is the message he is conveying with this heinous expression.

In fact, you acknowledge that he is saying it to mock people and rile them up. I agree with you. Why do think they're riled?

Do you not think that there is any correlation between saying something explicitly for the purpose of offending people and that thing being a nasty thing to say, especially when you don't believe it literally? I think that goes toward explaining my point quite well.

If you disagree, provide your reasoning about what is a nasty thing to say.

Wasn’t Fuentes present during Jan 6? And wasn’t he, unlike so many others even less tangentially involved, not charged or imprisoned? This is why people think he glows. Some arrangement was made.

I am sure he is a federal agent in some deep state conspiracy to... do... something? I don't know where the plot goes from there, hence why I asked: What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean?

Some arrangement was definitely made and ... Then what happens? Like, the FBI need to pay some guy to be a shock jock on twitter? They put CP on his PC and now he has to do as they say which is... Make fun of zionists, women and democrats?

I don't want to sound too dismissive but I don't know what relevance I should place on the notion that someone is a 'fed'. I mean, can I just refer to Ben Shapiro as Mossad and therefor dismiss everything he says when it inconveniences me somehow? I don't understand the purpose of calling Fuentes a fed otherwise.

I can’t say I have any insight into controlled opposition strategy management. But as far as having a deal with the Feds, what other explanation do we have for his light touch treatment after Jan6?

Fuentes made fun of women after Trump won. Fuentes is also a 'fed'. How should I relate these two things together and why?

The provocation is designed to rally more women to the democrats

so an agent of the federal government dropped him an envelope in the park which said "go after women with this joke"?

no, that's not what happens; what happens is Fuentes flies his derp flag and collects people and then he gives the contact information to the feds of all the suckers which are attracted to the flag

it's why this accusation of "controlled opposition" is such a goofy claim and little more than attack right gatekeeping because the speaker thinks Fuentes&Co. is counterproductive to some of their shared causes

Bodily autonomy is a fake argument because in practice nothing else follows from it aside from abortion.

Hey, there are some of us who are actually consistent on this - pro-abortion, pro drug decriminalization, and anti-vaccination. You just won't find us in the Democratic party.

Bodily autonomy is a fake argument because in practice nothing else follows from it aside from abortion.

And sex work, and medical transition for minors.

Most voters, even Democratic voters, don't actually buy the bodily autonomy argument, even for abortion. If you ask if women should be able to abort a day before she's scheduled to give birth, for no reason beyond feeling like it, most will just divert the conversation ("that never happens!") instead of biting the bullet. It's something cooked up in a philosophy journal that works as a convenient one liner.

most will just divert the conversation ("that never happens!") instead of biting the bullet

Or in other words, it's just the distaff/Blue counterpart to this.

The optimal number of murdered children in any society is still not 0 (and literally everyone accepts this- abortion is just more direct about it than others); what you're fighting over if you don't accept the argument works the exact same way from "the other" side is merely a question of how high that balance is, which causes are allowed to spend that balance, and for what reason. The pro-gun side's argument is that "complete disarmament would, counterintuitively, lead to more murder"; the pro-abortion side's argument is similarly utilitarian, so is the pro-trans one.

"The optimal number of in society is not 0" is about tradeoffs; it's not supposed to indicate you make no attempt to reduce X even when there's no cost to doing so.

The "all of them" response is not saying there's a tradeoff, it's not saying the optimal number of dead kids is non-zero; it's rejecting the tradeoff entirely, saying that no number of dead children is worth any gun control. Or would, if you took it literally. What it's actually saying is more like "we reject your framing, and fuck you". Which is much the same as what Fuentes is saying, except that women as a class are more sympathetic than gun grabbers.

further demonstrating that Fuentes is controlled opposition.

While this seems highly likely to anybody who looks at Fuentes' past stances and actions for more than five minutes, has anyone found any tangible proof of this fact yet?

I find it extremely suspicious that he was standing outside the Capitol with a bullhorn on January 6 yelling at people to storm the building in a way that was clearly criminal incitement, but nothing happened to him. People who did much lesser things that day ended up in federal prison for 10 years, but he’s just fine. Even though he’s someone who should be on the left’s shit list. I think he’s a fed.

There are shades between controlled opposition and uncompromisable crusader for the far right. It is indeed very suspicious that he didn’t go to jail, but it’s probably more likely that he just ratted a bunch of people out and cut a deal than that he’s a full-on federal asset.

There really aren't shades; you can't be a little bit compromised, because the ones who compromised you will use the smallest compromise to force larger ones. Pretty standard asset-recruiting technique.

I suspect it's more that 2010s blog feminism succeeded admirably in clearing the field of anyone who cared. In both respects.

This is an earnest question: could you clarify this? I'm confused what exactly you're saying the field was cleared of and what it is they cared about.

If you chase off everyone who's emotionally vulnerable enough to be hurt, and also everyone who worried about hurting you to start with, you're left with the people who aren't either of those things.

Asymmetry isn't surprising under those circumstances. (And won't last if the same is also happening in the opposite direction. A much more complex question...)

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