site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   35131 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not accusing you of homophobia or any other phobia, it's just that I don't see more to this theory than correlation: yes, gay pride parades are correlated with a decline in male intimate friendships. Tornado damage also increased.

The mechanism making it a causal relationship doesn't work. why do I care that my friend could think that I'm a closeted homosexual when I'm clearly not ? A closeted homosexual can perfectly provide all the duties of a friend - he would be a bad husband, but that's not the friend's problem.

I don't want to weird out my friend. You could say "No true friend would care if you're a closeted homosexual and why would you want to be friendly to such a person", but the fact of the matter is that many friendships are conditional on one not giving somebody else the ick.

And the need to not signal homosexuality is infinitely stronger when it comes to women, if for different but much more obvious reasons.

The only people who could be confused by this are a very small minority of women and asexual aspies.

Bu the ick is a 5D figment of their imagination in this case; and you’re denying it adamantly. No one is getting kissed or propositioned. Indulging a friend’s false, irrational fear to the point of sacrificing intimate friendships is a massive society-wide overreaction, if that is what is happening. It's silly. What if he thinks I'm a crocodile, so I can't eat in his presence?

And the need to not signal homosexuality is infinitely stronger when it comes to women, if for different but much more obvious reasons.

Really? It seems weaker. Criminally, lesbianism has always been far less punished, for example. Oh, you mean signaling male homosexuality to women? I can see why that would be worse. But again it's false in this case. Why indulge their unfounded accusations of dishonesty? Fuck'em if they can't take a joke.

"Fuck all y'all" is not a good life philosophy. People who try it tend to end up in unhappy places as their social credit runs out, especially if they move and no longer have the familiarity of many years to draw on. I've seen it happen, it's no joke.

Now, one should be discerning in one's friendships, and not farm one's brain out to the crowd, but that doesn't mean that paying no attention to the opinions of people you need or care about is a good idea.

Li Bai: A Beast or a God? is fun and more-or-less gets at this.

DU: But indeed, when the human race has discarded its childish moral philosophies, what else remains but self-creation?

LI: The idea that we can create ourselves is a serious error. Humans, unlike robin redbreasts and bears, are not asocial animals. Indeed, you will find that the person you are in the company of others, when you bow to convention, is often a great deal nicer than the person you dream of being, the man who throws off these chains. He refills their glasses. Nicer, wiser. Perhaps even more yourself.

What good is niceness alone on an island? Social credit is scrip, only useful for doing social things. There is value outside of the social sphere. Within it, I fundamentally disagree that you should not tell fat stupid irrational friends that they’re fat stupid and irrational, ie I disagree that lies are necessary to live in society.

Tact and sensitivity are not mealy-mouthed 'niceness' and nor are they lying, although sometimes they can disguise for cowardice.

Humans are social animals - the vast majority of what we achieve and what brings us pleasure is done in the company of others. There are few things more valuable than friends, colleagues and acquaintances who you respect, and to obtain and keep such people, you have to care about their perspective. You do not need to shout out every whim and snap judgement lest you become a creature of lies.

Consider this: if your friends are fat, stupid and irrational, why are they your friends? If they have other, redeeming qualities, why focus on the negative ones? How are they going to react to you telling them that they're fat, stupid and irrational, in those words, whenever you feel like it, because anything else would be lying? Do you really, truly think it'll turn their life around? Or are you really doing it just for yourself, because saying it makes you feel good?

Humans are social animals

To a degree. To what degree, largely up to us. Like our mating behaviours are somewhere between the lifelong monogamy of some birds and the 50-women harem season of elephant seals.

Lying is acceptable if the liee wants to be lied to, but I don’t think most people agree to be lied to. Do you ? I certainly don’t. They, like me, believe their model of the world is sound, tested, and that the truth flows into it without obstruction. They trust that their belief that they are smart and thin is actually true, instead of being artificially maintained and protected by social lies. Far from getting pleasure from ‘insulting’ them, I think I’m doing them a favour at personal cost, because some will shoot the messenger.

Hmm, how about some scissor questions?

  1. Is not saying something a lie? For example, if I notice that my friend has gained some weight, but I don't tell him so, am I lying to him? What if it's just an acquaintance?
  2. Is not giving your opinion a lie? For example, if someone proudly shows me his new car and I tell him without prompting that it's ugly, a purely subjective judgement, have I given him valuable information or have I insulted him unasked? Do you think he wanted that information?
  3. Do you think there is any difference between stating something unflattering, and conveying that information to them in a way that allows them to save face?

They, like me, believe their model of the world is sound, tested, and that the truth flows into it without obstruction.

I don't believe this about mine. Any model of the world more complex than "something exists that is thinking this thought" is capable of being swept away by sufficiently stringent devotion to truth. My worldview is like most people's: is a mixture of empirical observations seen through a subjective lens, moralisms, and lovingly constructed delusions. It is a house in which I can survive and it is like a living thing in that it is improved by some stress but destroyed by too much.

To a degree. To what degree, largely up to us. Like our mating behaviours are somewhere between the lifelong monogamy of some birds and the 50-women harem season of elephant seals.

For example, I believe that this is largely a lie lonely people tell themselves, as I did once upon a time. To quote Ripptoe on a different subject:

Physical strength is the most important thing in life. This is true whether we want it to be or not... Whereas previously our physical strength determined how much food we ate and how warm and dry we stayed, it now merely determines how well we function in these new surroundings we have crafted for ourselves as our culture has accumulated. But we are still animals – our physical existence is, in the final analysis, the only one that actually matters. A weak man is not as happy as that same man would be if he were strong. This reality is offensive to some people who would like the intellectual or spiritual to take precedence. It is instructive to see what happens to these very people as their squat strength goes up. (emphasis mine)

I believe the same is true of our social lives.

Is not saying something a lie? For example, if I notice that my friend has gained some weight, but I don't tell him so, am I lying to him?

Does he care about his weight, and mistakenly believes it has remained unchanged? If so, silence would be agreement, and so, a lie.

Is not giving your opinion a lie? For example, if someone proudly shows me his new car and I tell him without prompting that it's ugly, a purely subjective judgement, have I given him valuable information or have I insulted him unasked?

Such a conversation often includes the words ‘do you like my new car?’, that is a prompt , and you have to say it’s ugly. How does the conversation go with you? He shows you the car, says ‘it’s soooo beautiful!’ and you go ‘yes, I too find it wonderful’ (no you don’t, it’s fuckugly, that’s a lie).

Do you think there is any difference between stating something unflattering, and conveying that information to them in a way that allows them to save face?

Yes, but I don’t like it much, it’s a compromise required by human weakness. Ideally, honesty should always be forgiven.

The ‘saving face’ problem is that the conveying of information has been sullied by social status games. Some bits of information, criticism, are viewed as little arrows harming a person’s status. That is not conductive to a clear view of the world.

What are your lovingly constructed delusions? Tell me if I should lie to protect them, and I will.

For example, I believe that this is largely a lie lonely people tell themselves, as I did once upon a time.

I think your view is unfalsifiable. What if I produced a happy hermit? What if I told you I have experienced far more moments of happiness alone than in social settings?

What is modern atomization? To a large degree, people with alternatives, choosing to be alone. They could talk to their parents every day. They could go through their contacts or facebook friends and do something with a friend every day. But they choose not to. As to what little they do do, there were essentially no negative psychological consequences from covid, even though the threat and lockdowns stopped most social contact for a time.

I believe the same is true of our social lives.

So many things are the most important thing in life?

The only people who could be confused by this are a very small minority of women and asexual aspies.

Perhaps, but we can just say that "guys are generally real fucking ugly, so I find seeing them kissing to be at least twice as ugly" (contrast the universal cultural response to lesbianism, especially when they're attractive).

This isn't rocket science.

Ahhh, I always wondered about your name.

...I'm so tired, Steve.

Are you a man?

Yes.

Huh, are you 25 or under then? I'm surprised because I kind of thought every man could feel it in his bones. Like, all the other things you mentioned play a part too for sure, but it seems indisputable to me that the tension and insecurity that accompanied the societal shift also played a part, because after the first gay friend I had propositioned me I changed my behaviour.

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I'm not well.

Also no. I'm sorry, what are you guys feeling in your bones? That pride parades have fundamentally changed how you relate to other heterosexual men?

Corvos laid it out pretty succinctly. Societal embrace of homosexuality has negatively affected male relationships. I am less intimate with my male friends than I used to be, I can only be as intimate with them as I would a woman, because I don't want to send the wrong signals. Partly to society, to my family, to my girlfriend and other friends, but mostly to them, I don't want to lead them on any more than I would want to lead on a female friend.

The last big decriminalization push was in the 80’s, so I presume you’re old. You’ve monitored your male friendships for intimacy and noticed a statistically significant change, based on a cutoff point like this, bearing in mind that friendships in later life are often less intense?

Excuse my skepticism. It’s just that until a few years ago, no one had heard of this theory, and now it’s seemingly so obvious it has seeped into people’s bones.

To me this argument looks like a recent product of cross-pollination between anti-woke strands, in this case manosphere + trad. Until the 2010s, imo it would have been shameful and somewhat ‘gay’ to even care about male intimacy. By that I don’t mean to say that the argument is wrong, just that it was not and still is not obvious .

I don't want to lead them on any more than I would want to lead on a female friend.

The true analogy would be leading on, a gay friend. There is no ‘leading on’ a straight man.

The true analogy would be leading on, a gay friend. There is no ‘leading on’ a straight man.

No, it is men. I don't want to lead my friends on full stop. Before the normalisation of homosexuality (decriminalisation means nothing for this argument as the issue is societal stigma that didn't decrease prior to normalisation) the only friends I could lead on were female. Not literally of course, but in my head I put women into one bucket labelled 'people I should only get physical with if I'm trying to woo them' and men into a bucket called 'people I will never romance, so it doesn't matter'. After the normalisation, believing the media's lies, I maintained those buckets until I hurt my first gay friend by not reciprocating their affections and leading them on, and I put everyone into the first bucket.

And yeah I'm not surprised this argument is fairly new. The normalisation of homosexuality is fairly new. The red tribe gents who might have made this argument in the first place had no need, because they didn't go near those queers and homos in the first place, and like you say it would be gay to care about male intimacy. Meanwhile the blue tribers couldn't even ask the question, after all they aren't homophobes. So it only emerges amongst us freaks who don't fit neatly into a tribe. Add on top the fact that the establishment cares more about its message than the truth, and I doubt we'll ever see a study on this. I guess if you phrased it as somehow men's fault, like male homophobia has decreased male intimacy you might.

Huh I tried that and these don't exactly line up with what I'm saying, but I think they gesture in its direction.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10591-013-9249-3

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-014-0358-8

Two straight men can play 'gay chicken', even while being fully aware of each others hetero credentials. It's still called 'gay chicken' for a reason.

That's the lab environment. Most straight men have little patience for 'gay behavior' sprung on them in the wild, even from a friend. I feel quite sure this is something innate albeit socially mediated depending on culture and/or subculture.

I certainly could feel it in my bones.

Causation is impossible to prove for history or social effects, of course. You see correlation, I see causation. I think that the vast majority of people care deeply about their friends' opinions of them, and consciously or unconsciously modify their behaviour very carefully to send the signals they want to send and not to send the signals they don't want to send.

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