site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   28174 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 2022

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lack of good male role models/instructionals in the field of 'how to get bitches' leads to the Tates of the world getting pre-eminence since they're atleast offering something positive and actionable.

Like I'm not a huge fan of Jordan Peterson but a lot of the critics of his side of the manosphere just don't acknowledge how little the current left-dominated media really attempts to set men up to be successful or upwardly mobile. Tate might be a cartoon character but atleast he's something.

And that IMO is the biggest problem with the manosphere - it doesn't offer you solutions to your problems, but makes you feel good for having problems. And of course, it also doesn't take away from the fact that, as much as feminists hate them, confident and materially successful men do rank very high in the sexual market. That's why guys like Tate can say can go as far enough as they did and not face any consequences.

Like others have commented, I have to disagree that the manosphere provides no solutions to your problems. If you haven't experienced it at all I can see why it would appear that way because the majority of the content isn't specific or helpful enough to be valuable. There's plenty of graft, cruft, and "tough love" that's useless for people at the too-early stage of recognizing sexual market reality.

And that IMO is the biggest problem with the manosphere - it doesn't offer you solutions to your problems, but makes you feel good for having problems.

This is one of those statements that sounds accurate, but it's probably just due to outgroup homogeneity bias.

While what you're saying is true of say...incels. I would argue that TRP is vastly more helpful than say...Men's Lib or any feminist coded version. And it's really cause it captures a few banal insights:

  1. No one cares about any ideological justification you can come up with for failing*. That's for feminists. Just try not to fail

  2. Lift weights

  3. Approach - a lot of the "marginal" men really just need to be more outgoing. All of the TRP evopsych just gives them the confidence to do it.

That's all it takes to be better than a lot of the more "progressive" versions. Simply because it emphasizes an internal locus of control rather than commiseration.

* A very common thing on /r/MensLib and other such progressive spaces is to note problems, tut tut piously about how this or that problem all caused by patriarchy (even if women are the ones driving it) and will be solved...eventually when we dismantle it. In the meantime...they have nothing for you.

I would offer an and/or for (2): get competent at something useful / popular / impressive.

  • A very common thing on /r/MensLib and other such progressive spaces is to note problems, tut tut piously about how this or that problem all caused by patriarchy (even if women are the ones driving it) and will be solved...eventually when we dismantle it. In the meantime...they have nothing for you.

Or varieties of 'yes that is a problem but we need to solve the problems of marginalized oppressed people and prior generations that resembled you had it good so fuck you'

it doesn't offer you solutions to your problems

'Get jacked, get confident, get bitches' is more of a solution than anything being offered from the other side of the fence, though.

Is it One Size Fits All? No!

But atleast it's a suggestion compared to either 'Be Yourself' in a dating scene that is beyond warped or 'Long screed about how bad and evil men from before your time acted poorly etc etc etc'

The thing is, as with a lot of social problems these days, the solutions are all coup-complete.

You can't make the institutions that would allow boys to grow into men and negotiate high trust relationships with the opposite sex, those have all been destroyed on purpose by the powers that be, and as they dance on their graves they will pounce on any burgeoning attempt at creating such things again.

The political formula of the current ruling class requires any such things be crushed, so even if they didn't want men to be so aimless (and they do complain about it in those silly "where have all the good men gone" articles) they are duty bound to oppose any solutions.

Hence all you end up with is levels of cynicism reminiscent of Russian anarchism and its assorted bands of crooks, psychopaths and false prophets.

those have all been destroyed on purpose by the powers that be, and as they dance on their graves they will pounce on any burgeoning attempt at creating such things again.

Why do you say it's on purpose? Now I do agree the breakdown of families and fertility rates, high costs of education, housing crisis, etc., did demoralise many young men and true enough, the hard left seems to be gleeful about it. But is there any evidence that this is deliberately induced by the elite?

Why do you say it's on purpose?

Because those are declared aims of (some of) the Enlightenment and its litany of successors. From Rousseau to Engels to Dworkin to Haraway. The destruction of family, sex and the related social institutions isn't some accident, it's controlled demolition. In a similar fate to nation, religion and other such vestiges of premodern power.

Chernyshevsky didn't say "people will be happy when there will be neither women nor men" out of nothing. There is a clear opposition between human nature and the modern project and any attempt to roll back the decay of the institutions that shore up the former would go against the project that gives its very legitimacy to the modern ruling class: progress and the promise of ultimate equality between minds detached from physical constraints.

Men can't have their men's club because that would be reaction, fascism, patriarchy, or any of the other names given to people who attempted to stop the bulldozer or turn it back.

If you want names and faces you can get your fill from the usual suspects, but the Pritzker and Soros didn't start this. They're just the current face of a pebble that's been running down this hill for centuries now.

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