site banner
PaperclipPerfector  26d ago (text post)   26175 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 23, 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.

I don't think anyone is obliged to find anyone else attractive but at the same time we should be willing to look critically at the preferences and beliefs we do have. When we're talking about racial preferences I think the natural investigation is to ask what that racial preference is rooted in. Is there some trait you find attractive that you think people of a certain race have that people of other races don't? My impression is these discussions tend to flatten substantial intra-racial variation in the traits in question and engage in a lot of racial essentialism.

Echoing other people in the thread that I think your use of the term "we" is rather misleading - I don't think you or any other left-leaning person really believes that they need to "do the work" of deconstructing their own sexual or romantic preferences. To quote myself:

Of course, the way this is framed is that heterosexual males are simply conditioned to think they find women of a healthy weight more attractive than overweight or obese women, and if we were able to remove the "toxic beauty standards" propagated by social media and the fashion and entertainment industries, straight men would instantly be deprogrammed and realise that of course they find Lizzo hotter than Emily Ratajkowski, and how could they ever have been so stupid as to believe otherwise! In this obese utopia, there would be no "feigning" of attraction.

There's a grain of truth in this observation to the extent that social contagion plays some role in what people find attractive (e.g. Hollywood actress starts wearing her hair in hairstyle, men start finding women who wear their hair in that style attractive). But the sad reality for fat acceptance activists slacktivists is that many if not most of the traits to which straight men are attracted don't seem to be culturally bound at all, because they are obvious proxies for genetic fitness and fertility, and this is true even of cultures which have never been exposed to the "toxic beauty standards" of white capitalist cisheteropatriarchy (e.g. African villages without a TV or internet connection to be found). Find me a culture in which most straight men find 40-year-old women more attractive than 20-year-old women (all else being equal), or in which the hourglass figure is widely seen as repellent, or in which facial asymmetry is seen as more desirable than facial symmetry, or in which women who are so emaciated that they've stopped menstruating are highly prized - then we can talk about how straight men's distaste for obese women is a "Western social construct".

You'll also notice that the traits which fat acceptance activists themselves find attractive in men are mysteriously exempt from having been conditioned into them by these toxic Western beauty standards they so loudly decry. The only reason the tall, lean gymrat next door doesn't want to fuck you is because he's been brainwashed into false consciousness; but the reason you want to fuck him is because he's just ever so dreamy. Awfully convenient, isn't it?

As I mentioned in another thread I've done this same reflection myself and it's changed my own perspective on who I would or would not date. In any case I don't imagine this reflection necessarily entailing any particular change. I suspect most people who experience any change will do so in a way that's the opposite of certain standards of beauty common in their cultural milieu but that doesn't have to be the case.

And has this "reflection" had any actionable results in who you actually have dated or had sex with? That is to say, have you been asked out by someone you were attracted to, but you refused the invitation on the grounds that it would be inappropriate for reasons pertaining specifically to identity characteristics (as opposed to e.g. you're their boss)?

No, but that's because I've been in the same long term relationship since I was a teenager. Also the changes are in the opposite direction of your question. Generally it has led to me being more willing to date people I would not have otherwise, rather than less willing to date people I was already inclined to.

we should be willing to look critically at the preferences and beliefs we do have

Other than the question of "who's we", I like a straight answer to "but why, though?". I'm not particularly impressed with the performance of rational analysis and deconstruction relative to instinct.

"We" is "everyone" in my mind. I've certainly changed my own opinions about who I would or would not date by doing the kind of reflection I have in mind.

As to "why" I think understanding oneself and one's beliefs is a good thing. Maybe one finds one's preferences are not grounded anything deeper than "I like this for reasons I can't articulate" and that's fine. But maybe one finds that one has a preference that could or ought be otherwise. I certainly did.

we should be willing to look critically at the preferences and beliefs we do have

Who is "we"? Because I have never once seen this phase used to mean anything other than "you".
We're always told that "White cisheteropatriarchal beauty standards" must be "critiqued", "deconstructed", "subverted", and "abolished", but only as a political project to harm the people who like those beauty standards. There is no effort made to explain why we can't equally critique the "brown queerhomomatriarchal" preference for wheelchair-bound lesbians with vitiligo, because the whole concept of "critique" privileges (even sacralizes) the identities and preferences of ally groups that work to oppose and undermine the majority. See the endless academic talk about the Powerful Holy Beauty of Black Trans Women. I have an entire folder full of papers on this theme.

"the process of changing that fact is much more a socio-cultural one" presupposes that it must be changed without justifying why, or why only that beauty standard must be abolished. "Because your beauty standards get in the way of the leftist political project" is at least a real answer, but one that's never made explicit outside of friendly territory.
When the argument is used around and against normal people, the justification is left out entirely in favor of a strong accusation to throw them on the defensive, leaving them struggling to justify their personal preferences to the satisfaction of an inquisitional critiquer.

So, let’s take black women — and my sense is that the plight of black women is the primary subtext of your comment.

I have met, interacted with, worked alongside, and befriended numerous black women over the course of my life. I think I have about as much intimate exposure to black women, black culture, etc., as any other white American who has lived in a large diverse city and attended public schools in a non-wealthy area. My perceptions of them are not informed by stereotypes and media portrayals, but by direct and repeated interpersonal contact.

I would never deny that there are attractive, feminine, intelligent, pleasant, and sexually-appealing black women. I’ve met several myself, I’ve flirted with them, I’ve even kissed a few. Like most men of any race, I prefer mixed and/or lighter-skinned black women with gracile features and smooth hair, rather than dark-skinned heavily African-looking women with heavy features and kinky/poofy hair. That’s not to say I’ve never seen or met attractive dark-skinned, non-mixed black women — I think most men would agree that, for example, Simone Biles is a very attractive woman — but they’re fewer and farther between.

That being said, it simply is verifiably true that rates of obesity are significantly higher among black women than they are among white women, and that’s to say nothing of Asian women. Average differences in temperament (whether you want to identify them as culturally-informed, or genetic, or some combination of the two) are well-documented, and so are average differences in physical build, and even more subtle things like smell. Black women smell different from white women. Their skin feels different. It’s understandable that someone whose primary romantic/sexual experience is with white women might find intimate contact with black women to be unfamiliar, slightly disconcerting, and just less familiar.

Furthermore, when it comes to the relatively small segment of black women who are genuinely hot, feminine, intelligent, and able to perform middle-class respectability, they generally seem to find themselves catapulted into high-status roles which give them the pick of the litter of nearly all high-status black men, plus some portion of high-status non-black men. Those women are highly unlikely to come into contact with lower-status white guys like me — both because they are unlikely to share the cultural hobbies which would put them into everyday casual interaction with me, and also because they’re too busy being wined and dined by wealthier men than I.

So, for the average white guy, the odds of regularly encountering the kinds of black women who may interest him are quite low, and the probability of both him and her being xenophilic enough to overcome significant cultural differences and fall for each other is even lower. It’s not primarily because they are stereotyping each other; rather, they are fairly accurately perceiving each other, and deciding that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Is there a racial explanation for this difference?

Affirmative action plus the fact that the average of a certain subpopulation is different is more than enough.

Most men who went to college will, statistically, never have met a black woman who is attractive and on their level.

How exactly does affirmative action make black women fatter? I'm not sure it's about food prices.

It means every black woman you encounter in college is statistically an idiot compared to you.

Noted. But when I asked if there is a racial explanation for this difference I meant the difference in obesity rates i.e. the obesity rate of black women being much higher.

I mean, low iq and obesity go hand in hand in modern America.

How does that explain the differing obesity rates of black men and women though?

Average differences in temperament (whether you want to identify them as culturally-informed, or genetic, or some combination of the two) are well-documented

Perhaps but my understanding is the Big Five does not co vary by race

I can't imagine that this is possibly the case, though I have no trouble believing that it's often insisted upon and that a lot of work has gone into plausibly maintaining the position.

E.g., SSAs are known to be more self-confident (i.e. lower neuroticism) cross-culturally, and inasmuch as 'openness' is at least partly a proxy for intelligence...

Self esteem and narcissism are also higher with them too, so much of social science is questionable so who knows

Obesity explains almost all the racial dating gap between BW - WM and BM - WW. There is no need for very online theories of facial structure or hormonal differences as per @TitaniumButterfly.

Most racial groups in the US have similar obesity rates between genders. Black people have extreme divergence, with men less fat than white men but women much fatter than white women. Almost 60% of black women are obese. Only around 40% of black men are obese. By contrast, obesity rates for white, hispanic and Asian groups are almost the same between men and women.

Is there a racial explanation for this?

I'll wager that if you poll men, white women college athletes will be more attractive than black women college athletes. I'm not doubting you about obesity explaining the lion's share of the difference, but I think if you control for that somehow you'd still find a pretty big difference. White* women are prettier, even at the same weight.

I’m sure that’s true for white men. I find Jewish men more attractive than other groups of men, that’s almost certainly in part biological/hereditary. As far as I know many wealthy, attractive and high status black men who could date out usually choose not to. Some do, most don’t.

Right, I don’t think anyone is denying that most human beings are always going to want to date within their own race. (Race being broadly construed here.) Most black men are most physically attracted to black women, and they tend to value the physical traits that are most typical of black women. Black men seem to go absolutely wild for Serena Williams, for example, whereas I think most white men find her somewhat mannish.

But if we’re talking about the subset of each racial group who are willing to date outside their own race, the disparities in the patterns we observe are surely instructive. Something like 20% of Asian-American women, as I recall, date outside their own race; of those, the vast majority go with white guys, and almost none with black guys or Latinos. Since white men aren’t that much genetically closer to Asians than black men are, it can’t simply be that dating preferences move along a predictable gradient of genetic similarity. Patterns between whites and Latinos are somewhat closer; while Latina women are more likely to date white men than white women are to date Latino men, the difference is not all that large.

I hesitate to stake out a strong position that some races are “just objectively more attractive than others”. I’m willing to say that if such an objective ranking exists, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians are at the bottom of it, with maybe African Pygmies also in competition, but past that, I agree that things like differential rates of obesity and vast cultural gaps confound the picture too much to draw definitive conclusions. It’s probably true that on a global scale, white men (including Jewish men and other Mediterranean ethnicities) probably beat out other races’ men in terms of the preferences of women willing to date outside their default race; the rankings for women are more complicated, with white (again, including Jewish) and Asian women fairly neck-and-neck, and Latina women who manage to stay thin also making a respectable showing.

Since white men aren’t that much genetically closer to Asians than black men are

They are approximately half as far:

English - Bantu is 0.23

English - Japanese is 0.12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

If you were to divide humanity into 2 clusters it would be African vs non African (also Neanderthal admixture)

Latina women who manage to stay thin also making a respectable showing.

Latinas stay thin until they're married, or have kids, whichever comes first. It's not a 'some manage to stay thin and some don't' thing so much as a 'stay thin until optimizing for male attention doesn't make sense anymore' thing.

Some latinas will also manage to stay thin after having kids, or to be thin de nuevo, after their relationship/marriage with the baby's or babies' daddy/daddies didn't work out. It's a pretty common play from the latina playbook. A fellow latino man or extranjero will surely just recognize you and your bastard spawn's/spawns' Wonderfulness and he'll Step Up.

Counterpoint- mulatta women are considered more attractive in the African American community. I think European features are just more appealing to men.

Obesity explains almost all the racial dating gap between BW - WM and BM - WW

Ehhhh I don’t know about that. It’s obviously a significant factor — many black men certainly seem very interested in overweight white women, whereas nearly no white men are interested in comparably overweight black women — but surely there are a number of other important contributing factors as well. I’m not sure why you would be so dismissive of facial structure as an important consideration; I think it’s fair to say that the modal female Sub-Saharan facial phenotype is “more masculine” (i.e. less gracile, heavier features) than the modal female Eurasian facial phenotype.

And obviously personality and cultural differences are very important here as well. Black women, on average, have more domineering, more brash, and more extroverted personalities than white and Asian women. It’s understandable that many white men would be put off by this, whereas some number of white women would conversely be attracted to the similarly brash and extroverted personalities of black men. Men want someone feminine and demure, while women want someone forceful and confident.

Media, entertainment, and academia also put their thumbs on the scale for black men, in depicting them as more brash and exciting, and at least just as intelligent as white or Asian men. And women get much more of their worldview through memetic sources.

So men’s physical preferences are simple biology, completely unaffected by culture, while women’s physical preferences are determined largely by cultural forces?

This is a typical strawman/strawperson in such situations. And the subtle but Noticed insertion of "physical," when my comment did not specify "physical" or any physical traits. I would agree, depending on the form and qualifiers, that that's directionally true, though.

You're overstating the matter but yes, the truth lies in that basic direction.

I'll relay a similar overstatement I heard somewhere else: Men are attracted to youth and beauty; women are attracted to anything that wears a suit and treats them like shit.

Not entirely sure what to make of that but I do think about it from time to time.

women are attracted to anything that wears a suit and treats them like shit.

The ugly man in the suit who treats them like shit or the hot man who doesn’t? Seems more like a bitter divorcee statement than something based in reality; they just go for the guys who treat them badly is a way to cope with the fact that they’re more likely to go to for the hot men, good or bad, than for them.

I don't think so. I think of all the anecdotes I've heard of male med students who can't get a date to save their lives until they get the magic title, at which point they're swimming in desirable potential mates. I've observed this same (general) phenomenon in the lives of those around me with those successful in business, etc.

The reality is that power and status are attractive to women in a way that they are not to men. The 'suit' in the line I quoted points to this, but so does the 'treats them like shit'. That sort of behavior is and always has been a strong signal of reproductive fitness, since it indicates both that 1) the other men in the society are willing to put up with it, ergo the guy acting that way must be very near the top of the hierarchy and 2) the guy knows he can treat women that way because for such as him they're not the gatekeepers any more; he is.

Yes, good looks do matter, but so often correlate with the behavior I'm describing here.

My model indicates that a woman would rather marry a good-looking man who treats her well -- but she gets a lot hotter thinking about the good-looking man who treats her poorly. The one who treats her well is, sadly, sending a signal that he's grateful to have her, which indicates that she could probably have done better.

Seems more like a bitter divorcee statement than something based in reality

FWIW, and you can take this or leave it, but I'm attractive, successful, happily married to the woman of my dreams (whom I treat very well), and have enough children that I had to stop a moment to double-check the number in my head.

More comments

I don't think anything in this comment contradicts anything in my comment. I did not have black women specifically in mind. I had some examples of women of various races that varied along some of the traits OP mentioned explicitly but decided not to post them. To my mind there is a pretty substantial difference between "I have not met (and may not be likely to meet) a person of a particular race who has the qualities I want in a partner" and "I could never partner with a person of a particular race due to some essential nature of the people of that race." I do think that many of our preferences are substantially influenced by the culture and environment we are raised in but the process of changing that fact is much more a socio-cultural one than an individual one.

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