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 rise of the classical manosphere (Roosh, ChateauHeartiste, etc.), Neoreaction (Dreaded Jim, etc.), and even barstool F-boy-ery (Tucker Max) are all at least 10 years old, and in some cases closer to 20. None of this is new.
Scott wrote "Untitled" in what, 2014? The "women only go for jerks!" meme is not new. There was just a gap between when the millennials discovered it, and when the Zoomers finally hit puberty and started to discover it.
The point being made was that Andrew Tate is mainstream popular. Everyone in my workplace knows who Andrew Tate is. None of them have heard of the other things you listed. The fact he isn't saying anything 'new' to you isn't the point.
Who are your coworkers, and where do you work? None of my co-workers have heard of Andrew Tate, but a few have heard of Tucker Max.
Looking just at any metrics from TikTok, YouTube or any mainstream news outlet Tate is giant in comparison. I live in Scandinavia and there was, for example, a recent segment in the radio about Tate and how 'dangerous' he is. I don't understand where you are coming from here. Tate is obviously much bigger.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IMO none of these people were even close to as popular as Tate was at his peak.
Part of that might be differences in media - e.g. Youtube wasn't as big in the early days of the "manosphere" - but some of those guys (e.g. Rollo Tomasi) are on Youtube today and don't have his viewership.
Tate is also imo different from the ones who did get as prominent as him, like Tucker Max and Neill Strauss in that he's much more directly "red pill" (or misogynist tbh). Tucker Max was mainly selling funny party stories that were called misogynist but he was a fratbro, not a combatant.
Strauss wrote a book about PUA that ended with him abandoning the space after he saw its problems. It basically perfectly followed the three act structure of most crime/"pitiful nerd changes his life" movies: life sucks, discover this cool thing -> enjoy it for a bit then see the downsides -> extricate yourself while hopefully keeping some of the benefits of your journey (usually a girl - Straus ended the book on a serious relationship). As a story it's flattering to both sides of the audience: the pitiful nerds who want to change or vicariously live through the hero, and the people who think the PUA stuff is bullshit or bad. It's like watching Tony Soprano: everyone enjoys it so long as we know he's going to get his comeuppance at the end.
These guys had a bit of cover.
Tate will just straight up say that women are property and belong to men, or high value men should be allowed to cheat and will just go after his ideological enemies in a way that Tucker Max - who was mainly a hedonist at first - just didn't seem to give a shit about. His model seems to be melding financial guru + Tucker Carlson's "populism" (including anti-vax stuff) + red pill culture warrior.
It's a much more confrontational stance that plays way more into the gender war (which fits the topic of it getting worse). Very different proposition and it explains why he got banned.
The interesting thing is that he rose at all tbh
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link