site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32405 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's because they're men who don't fit into the far left nu-male mould. Masculine men are reviled for the same reason; they refuse to perform the gender role that is now expected of them by society; that of the spineless cheerleading doormat and ATM.

Women have been largely freed of their gender-based responsibilities and expectations, however those on men only evolve and grow more constricting. Society as it is seems to have a vested interest in controlling and neutering male energy. Allowing it to flourish, as in masculine men, or fester into hate, as with incels, is unacceptable; it must be channelled to the benefit of everyone but the man himself (and, indeed, men as a class). In the same way there is a concerted effort to prevent white racial consciousness (while kindling it in all other races), so too is there an effort to suppress men's consciousness about the reality of their social station.

Incels and traditional men both reject that men should be subservient to the interests of women, therefore both must be vilified, marginalised, and destroyed if at all possible. That's all it is. The same way all the furore around Andrew Tate never focuses on his actual crimes of sex trafficking and his dodgy scam empire, but is instead endless hand-wringing over his effects on the next expected crop of browbeaten and whipped males -- sorry, "young boys".

Masculine men are reviled

Wait, what? By whom?

The 80's level of worship for roided-out athletes and action stars was a high-water mark, not the norm.

I think masculine men have lost market share to trendy social movements, but it's the same sort of benign neglect that hits everything reaching a certain level of cultural cachet: it becomes the default. Movie stars are still fit white dudes. Truck ads are still laughably gruff. That doesn't change just because the media coverage for Rings of Power decides to lean on representation. There's no alpha in headlines about traditional masculinity--but that's not the same thing as reviling it!

I don't know where you're getting your news about the "furore" of the day, but I think you're being sold an unrealistic narrative. Everything I've seen about Tate does, in fact, focus on the sex trafficking. Everything about the Liver King leads with mockery that he didn't really live up to his image. The dregs of Twitter are not representative of normal, functional society.

Your counter-examples are all cultural figures, which are also not representative of normal society.

I think masculinity is thriving on YouTube and social media as well. Outside of twitter, masculinity finds a large, receptive audience.

I would say that kowtowing to something you don't agree with just to avoid the social shaming is fundamentally unmasculine behaviour, and partaking in some masculine hobbies and even having a wife (plenty of weak men have wives) doesn't make up for that flaw any more than wearing a dress makes you a woman when you've got an Adam's apple. I don't think I need to argue the case that there are big social consequences to men who don't hold their tongue in the face of absurdity. There's an inherent friction involved in being a man, but you're not supposed to hide from it.

And isn’t power pretty masculine?

Not necessarily, there are neutral and feminine forms of power, and the aristocracy were often ridiculed for being effeminate.

how much social criticism does a masculine man who lifts, is heterosexual, has masculine hobbies like fishing and woodworking, has a few kids, a stay-at-home-wife, is the breadwinner etc but who kowtows to the dominant ideology in public (like many ‘masculine’ men throughout history) actually face?

With a grand total of 7 stipulations put on his behaviour, how is that not exactly the "controlled and neutered male energy" that was being described?

"Just make sure all your hobbies are prosocial and you support all these hangers-on and you vote the right way and never think anything wrong and don't have any oddities..."

With a grand total of 7 stipulations put on his behaviour, how is that not exactly the "controlled and neutered male energy" that was being described?

Because those are mostly traditional, masculine things, and that was the original point of contention?

You seem to want to argue that there is some disjunctive set of conditions that men have to fulfill to be esteemed. That's right: it has ever been thus, and long may it remain so.

That seems like a bad example. I have never heard anyone refer to Trudeau as manly. He is "Prime Minister Bieber", the substance-free, effeminate pretty boy.

But even setting that aside, what you're saying seems like the sort of "do as I say, not as I do" intentional sabotage from Western elites. Maybe someone should slip esteogen and SSRIs into the water at Davos.

My understanding is that one of the things that put Trudeau to his path to current power was this boxing match, where he defeated a far more "macho" figure in Canadian politics.

The same description applies to plenty of middle class people.

Yeah you'd think Trudeau was a silly child the way talk radio describes him. Not the paragon of masculinity according to conservative gen-x talk show hosts.

But even setting that aside, what you're saying seems like the sort of "do as I say, not as I do" intentional sabotage from Western elites. Maybe someone should slip esteogen and SSRIs into the water at Davos.

So, I'm someone who would be an Incel, probably not one of those angry political people, but one none the less, if it wasn't for a big stroke of luck on my behalf. And there's absolutely a "do as I say, not as I do" element to it.

Incels are people who have taken the nu-male model and actually take it seriously, internalizing and actualizing the teachings. I think people just don't want to grapple with the idea that their ideology/aesthetic/politics can actually harm people, combined with the "ick"/low-status factor. That's my take based on my experience.

Those angry Political Incels, as I call them? By and large, they want those nu-male actualized traits to be lionized and considered high-status in society. That's generally what the complaint comes down to. And I mean...it's not going to happen, right? Self-improvement is the way forward and out. But that's often seen as a reactionary thing in and of itself.

Incels are people who have taken the nu-male model and actually take it seriously, internalizing and actualizing the teachings.

Many of them have been hearing it from their single mothers all their lives.

And all-female teachers

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