This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The "decline in heteronormativity" is a consequence, not a cause.
The traditional family structure stopped being economically competitive once we stopped [for a variety of reasons] being able to grant average men an economic niche as easily as we could average women (perhaps most visible in South Korea, where women believe that the slice of the pie the government grants to men though their draft rightfully belongs to them, and not unreasonably by men's own standards). And thanks to women being the lower-variance gender the chance they'll be average is higher.
Given how human attraction naturally works, that's completely backwards, and is thus a contributor to the destruction of families that could have been preserved had we paid attention to sociobiology. Now you need the daycares and the public schools, which grants the women in them outsized amounts of political power in an industry inherently incapable of being held to account (something also true of the HR department). The incentives to raise a son correctly are only aligned when a mother raises him herself, for if they fail they are held to account by virtue of being financially interdependent.
The result of that is that
whiteswomen start to think they earned that societal station naturally just because they arewhitewomen (much like how men do when there's no economic niche for the average woman). Which then goes to their head, which is then trivially abusable by those who can manipulate that sentiment the most effectively, ironically against their interests (which is how it's still logically consistent that a raging gynosupremacist could insist on men in women's places so long as they're wearing womanface; does Uncle Ruckus believe Michael Jackson is in white heaven?).Power still corrupts when it rests with the demos; the problem with democracies is, that unlike oligarchies and kingships, you have to persuade many more people that they're in the wrong. (Stating the demos can even be corrupt in the first place is the key feature of constitutionalism, but I digress.)
As the progressives are wont to say, you can have
a stable gynosupremacyclimate sustainability now orface the biological reality of androsupremacy[1] and/or be completely destroyeddegrowth imposed by reality later. Guess I was a progressive all along.[1] Men won't go to war for a society they don't believe will ever offer them an opportunity to purchase at least an average woman, or if they already trivially have that opportunity (economic booms create the Vietnam effect); therefore the interests of men must, in a society under normal socioeconomic conditions that will survive a war, supersede the interests of women.
More options
Context Copy link