site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31722 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Without some larger mission, most men aren't going to be motivated whatsoever. Men need a reason to exist.

For the vast majority of human history the vast majority of men (and women) have been beasts of burden. All this stuff about men needing adventure or heroism elides the fact that only a tiny minority of men have ever been heroes or adventurers. Working as a cashier at Walgreens is not significantly more monotonous or miserable than year-round farmwork.

What has changed significantly in the last century or two for men is that simply surviving childhood and not being a criminal or an imbecile is no longer enough to guarantee a wife and kids. To the extent men used to have any kind of higher “purpose” or “mission” I guess it was that. It’s not like (99% of) premoderns were sitting around philosophizing about Faith and transcendental values. This is not because of feminism or liberalism or atheism (as can be seen by the same issues developing in countries much more conservative than the west) but pretty straightforwardly a consequence of modern industrial civilization, which means individual women no longer have to rely on individual men for economic and physical security. When Jane doesn’t have to choose between starvation and prostitution on the one hand and marrying John on the other, she’s not going to marry John.

Physical and economic security is increasingly provided by ever-smaller groups of ‘specialists’ who keep the lights on and the barbarians out (and who may be mostly men, but are certainly not most men). That goes for all of us of course, which is why nobody knows how to fight or farm anymore.

No amount of social engineering, whether right-wing fantasies of restoring traditional masculinity, or left-wing ideas of building a new positive masculinity or whatever, is going to change that. There’s no cosmic law that says there has to be a solution.

When Jane doesn’t have to choose between starvation and prostitution on the one hand and marrying John on the other, she’s not going to marry John.

I'm unsure how historically accurate this most extreme formulation is, but I'm sure that in a world where manual labor meant a whole lot more, something like this probably happened in some capacity. I still don't understand why people say it.

I've seen this statement a lot. I've seen it said in many ways by many different kinds of people across many different hues and shades of culture and politics. I've heard it said in a few different tones, largely ranging from triumphant to bemused—which isn't the way I would say it if I thought it were true and a major cause of modern trends.

The first thing I think when I see it is that I wonder what the endgame is supposed to be. I think that people who have fun saying it usually intend it as some kind of polemic call to men to DO BETTER. I can't help but notice that this often comes coincident with a political framework that generally rejects not just the morality but the pragmatic efficacy of such a posture—but I suppose that by itself doesn't necessarily prove anything. I have an even harder time understanding people who say it with a rightward perspective. How exactly are we supposed to have healthy family formation in a future where this is true? There does seem to be a handful of small, right-facing factions that seem to recognize this contradiction to the detriment of modernity and its consequences, but funny enough I don't usually see those types saying this sort of thing. It's usually people like JBP et al and the occasional cathposter. I'm not really sure what the point is supposed to be when they say it, or if they fully realize the implications for the future when they do.

It's difficult to fully describe the degree to which this statement inflames my passions. What I really want to say is something like "wow, with all this porn and sex dolls, women can't just coast into success with men just by having a moist hole anymore"—but as we all know, the rhetorical switcheroo never works. Nobody is going to stop and think about the myriad ways such a statement would butcher women's dignity as a class of human being—nobody is going to think about how such a statement utterly de-romanticizes women's value as partner and mate, or how it faithlessly summarizes women's unique sacrifices that in part brought us to where we are today before cynically discarding it like a wet torch—and if they do, they're never going to relate any of it back to what they just got done saying about men. They're just gonna call you a hater and move on.

Now, I'm not the kind of man who is seriously deficient in hole moistness earning power, but I don't care. The simple fact that this the way my civilization views my caste makes me worry not that it isn't reproducing. The world should be inherited by men and women who actually love each other.

The first thing I think when I see it is that I wonder what the endgame is supposed to be. I think that people who have fun saying it usually intend it as some kind of polemic call to men to DO BETTER. I can't help but notice that this often comes coincident with a political framework that generally rejects not just the morality but the pragmatic efficacy of such a posture—but I suppose that by itself doesn't necessarily prove anything. I have an even harder time understanding people who say it with a rightward perspective.

Well I don't mean it in a smug "sucks to be a man!" way. And I consider myself a liberal so I don't mean it in a twitter fash "women should be property!" way. It just seems to me to be the case.

How exactly are we supposed to have healthy family formation in a future where this is true?

We're probably not. But I don't mourn its loss. I don't think the family is some beautiful, mystical union handed down by a beneficent God--it was a jury-rigged institution that persisted because it was the only apparent way to keep civilization from imploding, and was at least tolerable for a plurality of people. My personal experience is that huge numbers of couples, possibly an outright majority, end up resenting each other. I see little reason to think it was different in the past. Modernity is unpleasant in a lot of ways, including the one we're talking about, but it's far from clear to me that it's worse than what it supplanted. "RETVRN to coupling with someone who doesn't really like you all that much but will put up with you and raise a couple of kids" doesn't exactly inspire me. I guess it's 'healthy' insofar as it reproduced the status quo, but was the status quo all that worth reproducing? If that's the best we can aspire to, we might as well just blow the whole thing up.

What I really want to say is something like "wow, with all this porn and sex dolls, women can't just coast into success with men just by having a moist hole anymore"

Well you've phrased it crudely but is it not empirically the case that many men are replacing real-life relationships with porn? And if we really do get hyper-realistic AI companions in the near future, well...

Now maybe this is all just me. I can't relate to anything in the article OP posted because. Maybe because I don't consider myself particularly masculine, so it has never been a source of angst for me. I have never felt this drive for purpose and achievement that is apparently endemic to modern young men. I don't have the yearning for male spaces or brotherhood. I have never once in my life felt the urge to be a husband or a father. I feel less than no desire to ever be anyone's provider and protector, and the relationships I've been in, romantic and platonic, have shown me that the fastest way to make me to resent somebody is to be responsible for their wellbeing, material or emotional.

"RETVRN to coupling with someone who doesn't really like you all that much but will put up with you and raise a couple of kids"

I mean...for a lot of guys, isn't this a pretty good deal or what they honestly already have? I've known: skilled blue collar workers in relationships with 450lb women that need canes to walk and get winded walking a hundred yards, women in relationships with guys they'd divorce if they had had jobs and hadn't chosen homemaking, guys who chose to remain married to women that tried to strangle their 10-year-old child after the child and their mom had an argument.

That being said: it is probably a good thing that only the best/most adapted/most graceful of men get to have families and children; the idea that patriarchy was a sheltered workshop for low-value men doesn't sound too unreasonable.

I largely agree but, but I am not sure it is a given. There is nothing requiring the state to subsidize single women to the extent it does. Strong independent women who don't need no man do infact need massive bailouts from the tax payer. Single mothers get more government handouts and benefit from a plethora of social programs. If taxes were lowered and schools instead required tuition and if medical care was financed entirely privately single motherhood would become far less attractive. Even in terms of their jobs single women often work in tax payer professions often providing services to themselves. For example a single mother might work as a teacher thereby providing free child care services to other single mothers. Men who don't sleep with these ladies pay.

If there is a way that this unravels, it is the services deteriorating to the point that relying on them in order to be a strong independent women doesn't work.

For example a single mother might work as a teacher thereby providing free child care services to other single mothers.

I think that is one of the stupidest things I have read on the Internet, and I've read a lot of stupid things.

Is the education system in part a childcare system? Yes, unfortunately, but it's also in part a result of the kind of "home-making is not real work, only waged labour is valuable, get women into the workforce for the sake of the economy" attitude going on here. So if you have both parents out of the house all day working, and you have minor children, those children have to be taken care of by somebody.

But the real pith here is "providing free child care services to other single mothers".

Gosh, I had no idea children of married couples were not permitted to attend school in the USA! And that divorced and bereaved parents were also barred, because only women with no spouses ever could have their children attending free day care school!

God knows, I'm a social conservative who does not approve of the explosion in single parenting, and even I think this is a dumb statement of how things are. Yes, let's not have single mothers working as teachers, the whores and hussies! They're not doing a job, they're only in it to help out the other whores and hussies!

The issue is that their lifestyle is heavily subsidized. A married couple generally pays far more in taxes than a single mother. Single motherhood is only possible due to state sponsored services making it viable. If people had to carry the weight of the children they had themselves there would be far fewer single mothers. In countries where having a child by yourself isn't feasible far fewer people have children by themselves. Instead of children spending time with their parents they are institutionalized far more than needed. Parents often do a far better job at teaching small children than schools do.

Strong independent women who don't need no man do infact need massive bailouts from the tax payer.

And people argue in favor of them receiving more

What has changed significantly in the last century or two for men is that simply surviving childhood and not being a criminal or an imbecile is no longer enough to guarantee a wife and kids.

On the contrary, unmarried medieval laymen were commonplace, mostly due to poverty. And of course in other societies that practiced polygamy openly- do you think the bottom 40-50% of men were reproducing?

unmarried medieval laymen were commonplace, mostly due to poverty. And of course in other societies that practiced polygamy openly

Which historical investigations can we read on this? Which medieval societies and their laymen, which polygamist societies?

It’s not like (99% of) premoderns were sitting around philosophizing about Faith and transcendental values.

Here's where I disagree. If you read history, you'll find that religion was extremely central to premoderns' conceptions of the world. I agree that industrial society is what did it in, and in some cases it was very dramatic. Take the worldview described in The Pervasive World-View: Religion in Pre-Modern Britain:

The medieval period is generally regarded as one of outstanding achieve- ment in the history of religion. It is looked upon as an age of universal faith, when western Christendom flourished, secure in its beliefs and united under the authority of the supra-national papacy. An age in which long strides were taken in the outward organisation of the Church into provinces, dioceses, and parishes; one which raised awe-inspiring cathedrals, monasteries and many parish churches, still surviving among us as monuments to the beliefs and aspirations of medieval men and women.

An age which witnessed the creation of an ordered body of Canon Law and its general acceptance and enforcement; and which saw the construction of a superb intellectual synthesis combining the testi- mony of faith and reason and the enthronement of theology as the queen of all knowledge. An age when the Church dominated the content and conduct of education in the universities, grammar schools and other institutions. An age which looked to the Church as the creatrix and nurse of the crowning achievements of art and civilization.

Religion is often also the centerpiece of rebellions:

Furthermore, we can note that religion was sufficiently important to the common people not only to be supported implicitly by their acceptance of the conventions of the church but also to figure in a variety of ways in their periodic rebellions against the established order. Most uprisings of the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries had at their core grievances over changes in the organization of agriculture but many also included ele- ments of religious dissent

For an idea of what people thought about religion and superstition day to day:

In showing the extent to which pre-Christian super- stitions and magical practices continued alongside orthodox Christianity, Thomas amply illustrates the importance of those superstitions. Church officials may have despaired at the perversions of their teachings peddled by the laity but for the secularization thesis what matters is that superstition was widespread and effective. Horoscopes were read, not just as 'a bit of fun' but as a serious guide to social action. Spells were cast to ward off dangers. Amulets were worn as protection against ailments. Holy relics were venerated and used as sources of magical powers. Belief in the Devil was strong and widespread, as was the corresponding belief that the church had the power to protect against evil: 'People wanted their houses blessed, their fields blessed, their food blessed, their weapons blessed...

I hope this shows that even right in pre-modernity, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Religious worldviews and superstition were still going quite strong. We could expect that before the change of the industrial revolution these religious views were even more closely held.

To you point about mate selection:

When Jane doesn’t have to choose between starvation and prostitution on the one hand and marrying John on the other, she’s not going to marry John.

I get so tired of evolutionary psychologists reducing everything to who gets to mate with whom. Clearly humans have a lot more going on than just trying to get their rocks off, and while the evo psych mating lens can be useful, it is not something which can explain away the whole of human experience.

Do you truly believe you can reduce the tens of thousands of years humans have spent contemplating God, building great works, fighting massive wars, and the general whole of human experience down to someone's sexual market value? If so, I think the inferential distance between us may be too far to easily bridge.

If you read history, you'll find that religion was extremely central to premoderns' conceptions of the world.

Definitely, but I think in a mostly non-transcendental way.

Horoscopes were read, not just as 'a bit of fun' but as a serious guide to social action. Spells were cast to ward off dangers. Amulets were worn as protection against ailments. Holy relics were venerated and used as sources of magical powers. Belief in the Devil was strong and widespread, as was the corresponding belief that the church had the power to protect against evil: 'People wanted their houses blessed, their fields blessed, their food blessed, their weapons blessed...

Religion was and is for most people, a very functional and indeed, material thing.

As for theology, canon law, universities—very much minority affairs.

Do you truly believe you can reduce the tens of thousands of years humans have spent contemplating God, building great works, fighting massive wars, and the general whole of human experience down to someone's sexual market value?

No, but I think the vast majority of people never did any of those things. I think evopsych is often silly just-so stories, but it seems undeniable humans are largely driven by sex.

I agree that religion was de jure central to life for most of human history, but it's not clear to what extent its details actually made a difference. Certainly they do matter a lot in some contexts. But most of the things that you say they're central to, such as rebellions, schools, and marriage all existed before and after any given religion and, I claim, mostly don't depend on the details of religious texts.

As for "who gets to mate with whom", that's what the OP was discussing.

But most of the things that you say they're central to, such as rebellions, schools, and marriage all existed before and after any given religion and, I claim, mostly don't depend on the details of religious texts.

Really? I would argue that religion is the central piece that made things like rebellions, schools and marriages even possible. Sure you can take a purely materialist view and say they exist separately, but how did we humans manage to rise out of prehistory to even create a functioning society? How did we get along without killing each other? Where did the idea of marriage, or the idea of teaching your descendants important truths, or the idea that a sovereign is beholden to a higher power, even come from?

All of these things have their roots in religion.

All of these things happen all the time without religion, and also happen to a lesser extent amongst animals. And even sovereigns notionally beholden to god didn't keep power long without armies.

All of these things happen all the time without religion

Sure they happen without explicit religion, but could they happen without the framework religion provided? If people want to bring in evo psych arguments, we're talking an incredibly short timeline for evolutionary situations.

Yes, they happen without the framework religion provides all the time in the animal world, where we see pair bonding, leaders, and parents teaching children. I agree that religions shaped these institutions in the human world to some extent, but I claim that since these behaviors and institutions can clearly survive on their own merits, something like them would have arisen even if early humans somehow weren't religious.

That is a good point. Do you not think religion plays an important social role?

How do gangs of monkeys and bands of apes stay together?

How do some animals regularly pair bond for life?

While religion may have once been a social lubricant, now it's sand in the gears.

If that’s the case, why can’t we create secular ideologies that function as well as religions created thousands of years ago?

You are, I assume, aware of the centuries of butchery produced by the European Wars Of Religion, all of which were fought (at least nominally) about Christianity? And the similarly brutal sectarian conflicts produced by the various offshoots of Islam? Note that I’m not downplaying any of the good and noble results produced by these religions; you have to take the bad with the good. It’s not remotely clear to me that, in terms of per capita, fascism and communism produced worse or bloodier results than their religious counterpart ideologies.

It’s not remotely clear to me that, in terms of per capita, fascism and communism produced worse or bloodier results than their religious counterpart ideologies.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's all bloody as hell. The reason I keep pushing for religion is that I think it's bloody for a reason. It's bloody and awful because there is a there there. Because religion speaks to something fundamental, that humans cannot live without.

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