site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32787 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The almost inescapable conclusion is that if you're an American guy who is entering his thirties and is single, if you limit your dating options to women who are in your peer group in terms of age, nationality, and education you'll find exceedingly slim pickings. The best partners will have been snagged early and those that remain will have high standards and shitty attitudes to go with it. So finding a woman who isn't a ticking divorce bomb almost certainly does require broadening the search.

Well said. This was the conclusion that I came to. You should re-post this next time we have a thread on relationships.

I think I've made similar statements before, but I certainly will add that thought next time I see a thread on it.

The dating market in the U.S. is far worse than it was even 15 years ago, and if you've been out of said market for a while you probably don't realize how the combination of women raising their standards to absurd levels while simultaneously having less to offer in a relationship... SIMULTANEOUS with (and related to) millennial white women becoming far more politically liberal than average has made it absolute hell for your average guy to navigate, and has likely killed many mens' hope of ever finding a suitable long-term partner. Not just creating incels, mind, but creating the type of guy who ends up in Andrew Tate et al.'s orbit because at least they offer a positive view of masculinity and some hope of getting laid.

And literally nobody seems to have any plans on how to improve the situation. Indeed, the not-so-subtle cultural zeitgeist instead tells women that they're doing everything perfectly and don't need to settle... ever, and telling men to suck it up and stop whining.

So my TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL thought experiment: how might this dynamic shift a bit if we intentionally imported, say, a few hundred thousand attractive and eligible female Ukrainian 'refugees?'

I've heard it said that only women and children should be accepted as refugees; the men should have been fighting for the fatherland. That makes sense for wars. I don't know if it makes sense for natural disasters.

Very slim personal anecdote but I recently got pulled into a major event for a Young Conservative group over here in Australia. Black tie affair, lots of young people etc.

I found it pretty shocking to notice that of say 50ish young (Under 25) male attendees they only had about 2 female partners between them, and it's not like this was a Breitbart gathering. Reasonably attractive, suit-wearing, university & private school-educated young men of decent breeding and yet being a conservative makes you so staggeringly unable to compete in domestic dating circles these days. The very tiny smattering of girls who were there as members seemed to be dating 10+ years older and for either career progression or tapping developed finances.

I've seen the impact myself of having a Hinge profile set Conservative v Liberal (legitimately 99% decline in matches by indicating rightward leanings), though I've been off the market for a few months now due to finding a foreign-born girl who's a sane, reasonably-conservative slender woman.

The very tiny smattering of girls who were there as members seemed to be dating 10+ years older and for either career progression or tapping developed finances.

That's the other "fun" aspect of modern dating. Males are competing not just amongst direct peers, but with older males for the same pool of eligible women.

I won't go so far as to say that older men are actively trying to hamper younger men's dating lives, but imagine being a 25-30 year old of modest means and uncertain future and trying to find a partner, and noticing that many women your age are being taken by 35-50 year olds with more resources and 'experience', and are happy to occupy these women's romantic lives during their 'prime' years, even if there's no intention of a real long-term relationship. When I first started dating in earnest this factor was significant enough it was impossible to really ignore. Losing out on dates to an established guy who had 'more to offer' due to being wealthier is a blow to the ego.

For a younger guy, unless you won the genetic lottery you literally cannot compete with that on equal terms, since wealth and status usually take time to accrue.

Some serious demoralization given the already harsh environment. Older guys have no reason to stop doing this, either, since younger women will keep expressing interest and the plight of younger males doesn't really factor into their decision.

I've been off the market for a few months now due to finding a foreign-born girl who's a sane, reasonably-conservative slender woman.

Another little bit of datum to add to the pile. Serious relationships seem to be a commodity Americans have to import, these days.

Older guys have no reason to stop doing this, either, since younger women will keep expressing interest and the plight of younger males doesn't really factor into their decision.

Also frankly the older guys had to graduate through that younger period in order to become datable, so can't blame them for trying to reap something after getting through their twenties

For a younger guy, unless you won the genetic lottery you literally cannot compete with that on equal terms, since wealth and status usually take time to accrue.

You need to be an extremely conscientious, hardworking, determined guy and have been busting your ass since at the latest your early teens. If you've been working very hard AND are fairly smart and charismatic AND were born into a middle-class household, you might be able to make $250k/year by the time you're 27.

In all honesty, this does not seem like a bad ideal to set for young men: you need to be exceptional in order to find a partner. Even those who fail will have worked hard and reaped the reward.

It think the issue is that this will be subject to a power law distribution, not a normal distribution.

It won't be the case where if a guy is at least moderately attractive/charismatic, puts in constant efforts and is reasonably intelligent he will on average land a six figure job by 27. It's going to be more like a 20% chance he lands a massively high paying job, another 20% he lands something paying high-five to low-six figs, and like a 60% chance he ends up in a standard job paying 'enough' but not extravagantly. (Figures are blatantly asspulled at this point, can look for actual figures later)

There's just so many pitfalls that can prevent a guy from breaking through to true wealth early on.

And of course consider that a guy who busts his ass to this extent in his early life might actually hamper his dating chances during that time because he won't be nearly as fun for women since he works all the time.

So what you're proposing sounds like it could be a recipe for creating the older, established guy who leverages his wealth in his late 30's to play around with the younger women he couldn't get when he was younger.

Now, I agree it's a good ideal to strive for, but I'm pretty sure that the only way there's actual change in norms is to reign in female behavior somehow.

this will be subject to a power law distribution, not a normal distribution.

That is true for anything that has to do with capital. A thing is capital if having some helps you get more of it. As such, social capital (the number of friends you have; how many favors you can call in and how large) and financial capital ($) follow those same power laws. I mean, the archetypal "Chad" is not a lazy couch potato. Yes, he won the genetic lottery or at least did well. But he was also busting his ass since he was six, practicing football or something, lifting weights in high school, figuring out how to be more popular. Depending on where he is, he might also be hitting the books as well.

Hmm. If a guy is moderately attractive/charismatic, puts in lots of effort, and is smart academically-skilled enough to graduate in the top ~20 percent of his college class in a STEM subject? If he's going for a low-risk, medium-reward option he can become an actuary or a physician's assistant and be more or less assured of making that much. Granted, $110k at 25 is doing well for yourself but the 24yo physician's assistant isn't rich when he's making that much. He could become a travel nurse, as well. Those are basically guaranteed low six figures. If he is really good at math he might be able to be a quant.

Hitting the big bucks probably takes either more risk or having a side hustle like real estate or business ownership that pays off well.

As for reigning in female behavior: why would this be desirable? You've (at least, as per this model) got the successful, conscientious, lucky, charismatic guys with lots of success with women, and you have the unlucky, lazy awkward dudes alone. Yes, there's the old chestnut that young single dudes might go for broke and tear the place up, but I think that's only the case if they're also impoverished. The average perennially-single American male wouldn't do well in prison and knows it.

Is it possible that conservative women are simply more willing to engage in large age gap relationships?

That's an interesting and somewhat surprising observation. As I recall, in mid-America, married women are about as likely to vote conservative as their husbands, but I'm not sure how that translates to willingness to attend formal public political events.

I'm in what'd probably be considered the most Left-Leaning major Australian city, but even chatting to the guys it's pretty staggering how difficult it seemed to be to get a date. It was a Young Monarchists (I owed a close friend a favor, no particular personal royal inclinations) event so kind of a okay milquetoast career builder for conservative political aspirants.

My suspicion is that young conservative women are acutely aware of the ratios involved + a lot more willing & able to date up in terms of age and success, which produces a hollowing effect for young conservatives where the ratio's already 90:10 and that 10 are largely monopolized by middle-aged conservatives.

Does "young monarchists" attract pretty typical conservative demographics? (I don't know what axes are most important, but I imagine religiosity could be one) Not sure how that would affect dating prospects.

Yes, incredibly. Religious/Conservative coded

This is Australia, so "monarchist" means retaining the link to the British monarchy (the King is titular King of Australia, and the functions of a non-executive Head of State are performed by the Governor-General and the State Governors who he appoints on the advice of the relevant governments). It tracks Anglophilia and small-'c' conservatism.

Not necessarily non-white women are less politically liberal than nonwhite women, but white, college-educated women are across almost every stat I can find the single most overall politically liberal group around.

White women are more liberal than average, across the board, whilst nonwhite women are more likely to be more politically moderate/closer to the average.

White women are more liberal than average, across the board, whilst nonwhite women are more likely to be more politically moderate/closer to the average.

What do you mean by this? I remember seeing maps "who would be USA president only if women voted", "who would be USA president only if white women voted".

Maybe you meant what white women are more liberal than thier men and nonwhite women are more conservative than their men?

I'm saying that compared to virtually any other demographic white women are more liberal on average, with this especially notable amongst the college-educated ones.

So my TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL thought experiment: how might this dynamic shift a bit if we intentionally imported, say, a few hundred thousand attractive and eligible female Ukrainian 'refugees?'

If the past is any indicator, schlubby American guys would marry them, and as soon as they managed to get citizenship the women would divorce them, leaving everyone (except the Ukranians) more miserable than before.

There goes my backup plan if I couldn’t find someone here…

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Ordering up a $5k mail order bride from an agency Ukraine is not what is being proposed.

A man opening up their dating prospects to women outside your peer group in terms of age, nationality, and education would likely lead to far more healthy relationships.

The whole point is I'm not sure that the past is as reliable an indicator, as the sexual marketplace has never been this distorted before. There are more single, 'eligible' guys out there than there has been at any point in the past. It seems unlikely that 'schlubby' guys are the only lonely ones left without partners who would be likely to gain an advantage from an influx of eligible females.

So any event which shifts the balance towards males has the potential to bring, for lack of a better term, 'sanity' back to the situation by driving women to actually settle rather than hold out for the best possible bargain.

Or, it is of course possible that adding MORE females to an already female-driven dynamic would be the equivalent of pouring gasoline on the fire.

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