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.

You can't be masculine and a loser.

Ok, now I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about. Why not?

Let me put it to you a different way then; If you can be masculine and a loser, why should a man who gets no attention from women but wants attention from women want to be masculine? Especially in the sort of prosocial sense as described by you and the author of OP's article.

Good question. I'll assume that by "loser" you mean something like "not romantic approved by women".

"Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all." - Ecclesiastes

In the modern world, it seems that the best bet that most men have for romantic success is to embody a certain archetype of the Noble Warrior. I think that Jordan Peterson put it something like "dangerous, but civilized". Women will often go with just dangerous (the Andrew Tate phenomenon) but this seems to be when they have lost hope of the combination with being civilized. So, while there is no guarantee of success from anything in life, there are probabilistic rewards from virtuous masculinity for a lot of men today.

Additionally, there are valuable things in life other than women's approval, which isn't to deny the very strong attraction of the latter for most men. Many (perhaps all) masculine virtues are useful for these. Partly because life has these complexities, I don't regard every man who isn't approved by women as a "loser", if as this word requires some sort of negative judgement. Based on what I know about things like depression and procrastination, I think that such terms - though motivated by a desire for success in various activities, including romance - actually are counterproductive and lead, ceteris paribus, to diminished performance.

And yes, I've experienced that state of mind where it seems like women's approval (or even one woman's approval) is the only thing that really matters. It seems common among men at some point in their teens or twenties. I don't think that's a rational or useful mindset - except insofar as the suffering it causes incentivises them to greater states of knowledge, strength, and wisdom.

So, in short, you are right that there are no guaranteed rewards from prosocial masculinity, but this is true of anything, so if that was a reason not to want to do X, then it would be a reason not to want anything. Women's romantic approval can be an awesome experience, useful, fulfilling etc., but it's not the only thing that matters, and it's certainly not a basis for holistic judgements of a man's character.

I explained what I mean by 'loser' here :

Because, as I maintained in my reply to OP, getting women is a competition. If you lose the competition it doesn't matter what you've done or how hard you have worked. And ultimately every man understands that if you are not successfully getting women, you are in a sense a loser compared to those who are successful. You can't be masculine and a loser.

But you are missing the point of the question. Which was sort of rhetorical and intended to help you understand what is being talked about, but your answer will suffice. As a followup:

If being prosocially masculine was not the best way to become a winner, why should anyone who wants to be a winner do it?

What do you mean "the best way"? Guaranteed results for everyone? Or just the best bet in an uncertain game?

Also, does "wants to be a winner" mean just wants to be a winner (romantically successful) or that this is one of multiple goals they have?

I am using the term 'best' in the same sense you used it in your previous post where you said their best bet for romantic success was 'virtuous masculinity'

This is genuinely starting to feel like an exercise in futility. The point I'm making isn't hard to understand. It feels more like you are trolling or deliberately being obtuse so you don't have to engage with the topic.

No, I think you're making a serious and significant argument, which is why I am trying to understand it carefully. I wouldn't spend time on it otherwise.

If being e.g. a femboy or a cad is someone's best bet at romantic success and that's all they want to do, then it's rational for them to do that. And there are no guarantees in love or life, ever. However, it doesn't follow that prosocial masculinity is impossible or irrational for men in general.

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