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 sense that I get is that this can't possibly work that way, because women are the ones who define what "defective" means. By definition, 0% of women are defective, and X% of men are defective as determined by the judgments of the women which play out in whether or not one of the women chose to marry the man. I think this underlies most of the discussion on this topic, and trying to reason why those X% of men might have negative character traits is just a long-winded way of trying to avoid recognizing this. Those men are defective, by definition, but for whatever reason, people in our society don't like to think of ourselves as judging people as "defective" based purely on their romantic success, and so we come up with other reasons to justify this judgment that avoids the obvious answer.
What, Newton and Tesla are defective but the average drug dealer (or Scott's Henry) is an outstanding example of humanity? Somebody might be 'defective' until they receive their inheritance, at which point they become a first-class example of manhood?
The opinions of women should not define what it means to be defective as a man. If you define defective to mean purely what women think, then it loses meaning for any other use we might want it for. Women might not like math nerds with small shoulders but there are many applications that need them.
Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter. "Defective," like most words, isn't strictly defined and has loose boundaries. Whether or not opinions of women should define "defective," I think it does define "defective" for a certain common way of defining "defective." This is somewhat different from the way one might use "defective" when describing "Henry" as "defective" and "Tesla" as "not defective," but since they're the same word, I think there's an impulse to take people who are "defective" by the former definition and fit them into the box of the second definition.
Of course, the choice of the term "defective" is also somewhat arbitrary. It's really just a shorthand for a general cluster of negative affect one might attach to someone.
Why can't we just split the meaning between 'sexually attractive', 'prestigious' and 'talented'. The English language is not short of words, we don't have to recycle. Napoleon had immense talent but less skills with women, he got cuckolded by some cavalry lieutenant. I think the axis of sexual attraction is completely unrelated to actual talent, just as charisma is separated from intelligence or strength.
Women often respond to physical attractiveness, prestige and wit. But you can lack all of these things and still be talented. I suppose you might say that the biological purpose of our genes is to reproduce, that's the sole goal. But we have an entire compensation system to address this issue, talented but uncharismatic men are supposed to acquire money so they can mate by bribing women. Our civilization unconsciously recognizes (or used to recognize) that it's useful to reward ugly talent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For how long have you been a committed champion of the longhouse?
Sorry, I think this must be a reference to something, but I don't understand it. I had to Google what a longhouse was and, as I had initially guessed, it seems to be a house that is long. But I'm guessing you're referring to something more specific.
This seems to be the definitive article on the subject.
More options
Context Copy link
Longhouse, as you said, is traditional dwelling used by many tribal peoples, independently invented many times because it is highly practical.
"Longhouse" in internet alt right speak means modern degenerate and unmanly society where women and homosexuals rule and real true manly men are oppressed and persecuted.
"I do not want to sit in office all day, I want to loot, rape and pillage like my ancestors did! I want to collect enemy skulls, not funko pops! They do not let me live like real man, this is so unfair :'-(:'-(:'-("
Why they chose this name is unclear. One would imagine that online manly right that sees civilization as fake and gay would see life of Iroquis or Mohawks as the best life ever.
Would "Bronze Pervert" and his ilk advise the Iroquis to leave the longhouse and build tiny huts for each family separated with picket fences? If so, they wouldn't go very far.
edit: links
As someone else here who had to be enlightened on this topic, I wonder if maybe the Viking/other European nomad tribal longhouses were different than how the American Indigenous tribes did things, and that's where BAP et. al. are getting the concept from.
A lot of that stuff seems to come from Bachofen, a 19th century Swiss theorist of historical promiscuity and matriarchy, although I'm not sure if he specifically wrote about longhouses. Right-wing writers like Evola and Alfred Rosenberg believed that Bachofen's theories described the pre-Aryan cultures of Europe, but not the patriarchal Aryans who came in to destroy said cultures. The BAP people seem to be riffing off of this with the longhouse talk.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link