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 only cure for this is practice. Many years ago I almost threw up with anxiety before my first dating-app date. Now, women are disposable playthings to me and I have absolutely no concern for their feelings at all beyond the instrumental requirements to get them to sleep with me. At a point you come to regard each one as an entertaining brain-teaser (how do I need to rotate this Rubix cube to get it into my bedroom?) rather than as a person to whom the Golden Rule applies. This makes dating totally stress-free because you just don't care if you go down in flames.
TL;DR: There's nothing to make your first forays into the pitiless jungle psychologically easier, but each foray makes the next one easier.
That attitude is horrible, manipulative and sexist.
It is a well-established fact that women are people. Treating people like objects is the essence of evil.
You've probably hurt a lot of women, and I think you're hurting yourself in the meantime. Stop.
What's the greater evil: my psychopathy, or OP's incel-ism?
Overcoming social anxiety to be able to date is a good end. Does it really matter that one uses evil means when the evil means exist only in my subjective qualia, not in the objective outside world?
I am OP, and I'd rather suffer privately than cause a bunch of other innocent people to suffer for my sake. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The objective outside world includes a number of women whom you have personally treated as disposable playthings. People get hurt when they're treated that way.
What's the evidence that women are hurt by his nonchalantness?
They're fine enough to sleep with him at least.
Less anxiety in the world is better
"Nonchalantness" is selling it short. Butlerian describes his attitude as psychopathy. That's literally the word he used. He also used the word "evil" and the phrase "women are disposable playthings to me and I have absolutely no concern for their feelings at all beyond the instrumental requirements to get them to sleep with me"
I would have thought that the destructive nature of this approach would be self-evident.
If you'd like proof, though, here's a paper about psychopathy in romantic relationships: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306624X211049187
And here's a few personal testimonials:
https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/zjuxja/im_tired_of_guys_who_just_want_me_for_sex_and_lie/
https://www.readunwritten.com/2017/01/26/im-tired-guys-wanting-not-wanting-date/
https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1462bbn/guy_just_delivered_my_order_asked_for_my_and/
https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1467tq1/the_goddamn_audacity_of_men/
Psychopathy often causes abundant anxiety in its victims.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Since the latter isn't an evil at all, whatever else it may be, your psychopathy, almost by default.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Between his post and yours my take away is that I'm now glad I can't date because going to a forest, finding a good sturdy tree branch and hanging oneself seems preferable to cultivating your romance instincts to be sociopathic so you can 'date' effectively.
I hated dating when I did it, I hated being rejected and having to reject, hated the awkwardness, hated that there was basically no one there relatable.
Honestly thanks for the post - I can brew some quality copium out of it.
Brother, human sexuality is nasty, and I honestly think St. Paul had the right idea there.
The elders had the right idea with their arranged marriages. None of this cock-caurosel bullshit that's destroying our replenishment rates.
I’d agree, unless there’s an assload of pressure keeping them together. That’s no good. There’s good arguments that patriarchy was a sheltered workshop for unattractive dudes, and that we’re just getting rid of ‘em now. That’s fine: it’s truly nothing personal, the awkward programmer making $100k/year who can’t get a date is basically just roadkill on the highway of progress.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A friend I know explained it as women being like a Contract Bridge deal. Each deal has its own contract that you need to make and there are an absolutely huge number of hand card permutations (every woman, like every bridge hand, is effectively unique). Your job is to play what you have been handed and make the contract.
Sometimes certain methods work on some deals while they don't on other deals (finesses etc.) and you can never really be sure until you try them out. Equally though there are general principles that are good to adhere to and will lead to better long term results if you follow them rather than not following them, even though on specific deals they can sometimes be counterproductive. And finally getting good with woman is a learnable skill that comes with practice, much like how getting good at bridge is a learnable skill.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link