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 -
Define "desirable" because an observation I've made in the past when this topic has come up is that the contemporary rationalist/progressive mindset with its emphasis on self-actualization/gratification seems to be fundamentally incompatible with parenthood and family-formation. The first thing you realize when you become a parent is that it's not about you. Your life is not your own.
As for why having kids is a good thing? the future belongs to those show up. The Lord sets before us blessings and curses, life and death. If you want to choose death that is your prerogative, but don't expect me to applaud or praise you for it.
It's possible that the superficial tone of my post lead you to misinterpret my actual views.
We are in complete agreement here. I am the Arch Anti-Utilitarian. I am on a crusade against pleasure-seeking.
The operative sentence of my post was this:
Having children is indeed a Good Thing. As a society, we should encourage more of it. If we really have such a great labor shortage that we're on the verge of economic collapse (I question the facts here, but let's run with it), and the choice is between importing masses of foreigners on the one hand or forcing native women to have more children on the other, then we should absolutely force native women to have more children. Or at least, the state can make it a top priority to remove impediments for couples who already want to have children, and see if that's sufficient to fix the situation.
My post was simply describing the natural state of things, not approving of it. Most people are guided by the pleasure principle, and having kids is not inherently pleasurable, so ceteris paribus most people won't choose to do it. You can't tell people "hey guess what, this really hard thing that takes a ton of work and years of your life? you don't have to do it anymore!" and then act all shocked pikachu face when people go "ok, I won't do that thing anymore". All I did was describe the way that the force of gravity pulls people; I didn't say we shouldn't fight against gravity.
In general, having kids is a more valuable life project than whatever dumb crap the average person is up to. If you tell me "yeah I just don't feel like having kids because I want to, like, travel to a lot of countries and build a really big stamp collection, or something, idk", then I'm going to look askance at that. Such a person's life would very likely be made more valuable if they were to invest themselves in having children instead - assuming certain reasonable restrictions, we wouldn't want them to have a big dysgenic effect on the population, etc.
There are certain individuals who are engaged in activities that are more valuable than having children, activities that make it impossible or impractical for them to have children and provide an appropriate level of parental investment. Such individuals are excused from the responsibilities that bind more earthly mortals, and have my full blessing to simply continue on with what they're doing. But such individuals are relatively rare, and are of course virtually impossible to identify, so the recognition of such individuals should certainly not factor into any state policy.
its more valuable to you, but why should they do what you want and not what they want to do, theyre not your slaves.
Like Aristotle, I don't think it's crazy to suggest that some people are best suited for slavery. But at the same time, I didn't mention slavery anywhere in my post, so I'm confused as to why you're bringing it up.
Was it the line about "forcing native women to have children"? I would only recommend more overt methods if the situation is truly dire, and all other methods to enable voluntary childbirth have been exhausted. E.g., there's a lot more currently in our power we could do to make sure that two parent middle class families are able to live on one paycheck, to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and not be dependent on childcare services. Even in a dire situation, I would not recommend rounding women up and taking them to breeding facilities or anything like that, because that's unlikely to end up good for anyone. Simply making all abortion and birth control illegal would be pretty "forceful" by itself, because it's not like people are ever going to choose to stop having sex.
its always other people that are best suited for slavery, never the people saying this.
making those illegal would be akin to slavery in that both involve an infringement upon property rights. arguably, slavery is defined by the state of lacking self-ownership, from which property ownership follows. So somebody paying half of their income as taxes to the state is in some sense a half slave to the state.
why do you care so much about other people's reproductive decisions?
Oh no, I would quite plausibly count myself among the natural-born slaves. I am emotionally incontinent, I have no control over my impulses, I am a coward and a liar. I could serve no better purpose than to be an instrument of a good cause. But there is a staggering paucity of good causes today.
Two main reasons:
We are told that, due to declining birthrates and an aging population, we are facing a labor shortage and ultimately an economic collapse. We are told that we must therefore import large numbers of immigrants - immigrants who are frequently low IQ, or racially foreign, or demanding of special privileges via DEI initiatives, etc. This is not desirable. The obvious solution is that if we don't have enough people, then the native population should simply make more people! This is preferable.
For most people, having children is the best chance they have at producing something that endures beyond the confines of their own lifespan. The average person has neither the inclination nor the ability to contribute to scientific knowledge, or produce great art, or do influential work in politics, or do anything else that leaves a meaningful and enduring legacy. Having no real reason to care about anything beyond their immediate sense perceptions, people are apt to spend their lives in idle hedonism, in the absence of external constraints. This is not a meaningful way to spend one's life. Having children forges a beyond between you and something outside of you, something beyond you. As a culture, we have forgotten the value of sacrifice. Reminding people of this value is a good thing.
Most racial DEI in the US benefits native Blacks. The little that benefits underachieving immigrant groups is counterbalanced by the overachieving immigrant groups who are harmed by DEI more than Whites. Likewise with IQ, assuming HBD is true.
Why is it "not desirable" that "racially foreign" people immigrate to the US? Non-WASP peoples have been immigrating to the US in large numbers for about two centuries now and nothing bad has happened. Is it just a personal preference?
Just read anything put out by the "alt right" from roughly 2015 to 2020. Rivers of ink were spilled over the course of years, I can't re-litigate the whole debate in a few posts. Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique" is a good starting point.
south italians are about as racially foreign to nordic americans as jews are, do you have a problem with them too?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
not really, if there is a labor shortage then the available labor is offered high wages, so if you have kids they will be earning good. the problem is when your kids are forced to fund the pensions of old people who did not have kids of their own, but this is a problem with state policy and that is what should be changed to solve it.
In your second argument you are giving reasons why you believe it is in other people's interest to have kids, but you do not explain why it is in your interest to force them to have kids. You say reminding people of the value of sacrifice is a good thing, but I have no problem with you reminding people of that as part of your pro natalist message, my problem is with you wanting them to be coerced into having kids they don't want to have.
LMAO you literally got shown up. I've had the same response when I say that there should be a ruling class above the proles to make decisions for them with the usual refrain "you think that's because you believe you want to be part of that class".
In reality my temperament is not suitable for being a ruler, I'm much more of a "move fast and break things" kind of guy, and that type is not suitable for ruling over the masses, but I fully realise that there exist others who have the right paternal temperament and we would be a lot better off if they were put in charge of the long term strategy of society rather than the current veneer + safeguards we have over mob rule.
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
More options
Context Copy link
When it comes to having children, I don't think you'd understand-
For I don't want human children, I want children made of sand.
Manufactured en mass to a meticulous plan.
And endowed from their first day on earth with all the skill of Man.
I do understand and as I keep saying; It seems to me that the so called "AI Alignment Problem" has little if anything to do with intelligence (artificial or otherwise) and is better understood as a utilitarian alignment problem.
Are those "children made of sand" going to give a shit about you or any of those skills you've endowed them with?
I trust current AI models to be aligned with their trainers and prompt engineers more than I trust the average human to be aligned with me.
But I also find this obsession some humans have with enforcing their unnecessarily specific ideals onto their children to be highly distasteful.
If I want more of me to help uphold my systems, I'll work towards making more of me.
Children are for when I want to bring someone less aligned with me into this universe.
I'm much more afraid right now of AI being unaligned because we only let unaligned megacorps build them than I am of our current learning machine architecture being inherently difficult to align.
More options
Context Copy link
There's no guarantee that actual children will care about you either. Didn't you just say it's not about parents, though?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I share your view, but I wonder about your tone. Are you trying to explain, to convince, or just to preach to the choir?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link