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 -
My read is a pretty simple one:
Young men are a dangerous and often degenerate demographic and they really have only two motivations: Sex and violence. Sex is what they want and violence is what they can do. One of the prime problems of society is how to get young men into adult society without doing anything too damaging. In the past, this was accomplished with marriage. Boys got married young, and the combination of sexual access, family responsibility and parental attachment was generally a strong enough combo to blunt the worst impulses.
That system is gone now, for most of the developed world.
The intersection with feminism is one of several reasons for this. Feminism wants equality with men, but specifically in the male dominated spaces, not the female spaces they had already dominated for millennia. The problem is that while all people are status-seeking, women are mate-status-seeking. Men don't much care, so long as a woman is attractive and pleasant. Achievement is sexy on a man, it's completely orthogonal for a woman. By gaining status in formerly male fields, women reduced the number of mates they are willing to consider substantially. The success of women in academics and the workplace creates a large and growing sector of the male population competing over a small and shrinking number of women who are poorer and lower status than they are. It also creates the phenomenon of wildly successful women complaining bitterly there are no decent (i.e. higher status/richer) men anymore. And there aren't, because the ladies succeeded in pricing themselves right out of a mate. Men can and will date down the heirarchy. Women (as a generality, exceptions, NAW, all that) don't.
This state of society is unstable in the long run. Young men who are not brought into society will eventually turn on society. And once they turn, it's only a matter of time before they organize, find a cause and start using the only power they really have: a violent death wish. I believe we already see the first stage of this with school shooters, ISIS recruits, etc.
The question is which way women want to go? They can keep the money and status, but they'd have to fight their own psychology and mate down. Or they can give up the money and status and have more mate options that coincide with their preferences. Or they can rely on repression to keep the men in line, but that requires men to do it, the women will still be alone, and people who are willing, even eager to die are really hard to stop.
Ten percent of 350 mil is thirty five million dudes. The whole US military, National Guard and all police put together are about two million. Plus, they're staffed by who again? Oh yeah, young men. Right now the radicalization rate is tiny, but if even a tenth of one percent of that ten percent get as radicalized as school shooters, that's almost twice the size of the Marines. Probably not enough to stage a full-on revolution, but plenty enough to seriously degrade society. Three percent of them radicalized would most likely bring down the government.
Assuming they're organized and aiming in the same direction. We already have a quite violent, quite sizeable criminal fraction, who aren't anywhere close to bringing down the government.
No and yes.
No, I don't think they need to be particularly organized.
Yes, they need to be significantly more radicalized than street criminals.
FWIW, I don't think this is a likely scenario, I'm merely pointing out that you don't need all that high a percentage of the population to be suicidally homicidal to make a big difference.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Status is such a nebulous thing that I worry about this a lot less than you.
Status doesn't have to be moneymaking, or having the best jobs. In fact, these are poor stand ins for the real status maker: what other people think of you. Being a well respected person among a group of well respected people is status, and you don't need a specific job or achievement to do that. Men can achieve status and reputation through social skills, sports achievements, comedy, etc.
Absolutely, but crucially, these are low percentage options. They are handsomely rewarded at the highest levels, but for every pro athlete, actor or comedian there are thousands who didn't make it. Simply put, these sorts of jobs cannot be the solution to a population-level problem. There just aren't enough of them.
A more realistic method is crime, and this is the prime driver of violence cycles in dysfunctional communities. The gangs provide a hierarchy to rise within, there's danger and money and drugs. And because of all that, there's sexual access as well. My pet theory is that this explains the crime level in our more dangerous areas. When it becomes the easiest way to gain protection, brotherhood, status and pussy, what red-blooded teenager wouldn't join a gang? I did. I just had the caution and foresight to make sure it was the toughest gang in the world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We all know it’s going to the last of those three options
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link