41–49 of 49 posts
Subcultures are dead. I plan to write a full obituary soon. Subcultures were the main creative cultural force from roughly 1975 to 2000, when they stopped working. Why? Dead? I think not. What about the whole NRX Silicon Valley techno-libertarian sub-culture, which came into preeminence in 2008? How about selfie culture? Or STEM culture, or how STEM seems to have become the new 'cool' or celebrity status, especially…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would have a hard time qualifying re-brandings of misogyny as subcultures. They're subcultures. Just because they're "normative and reactionary" doesn't make them less so. Sadly, they're cases of opposition to mainstream misogyny with extreme misogyny. (Not to say that all of MRA is misogyny. Gender injustice is such a complex topic that it's inaccurate to believe that it would fall entirely on one "side", or even…
Why do you believe that sending signals of masculinity, social status and high value (the core elements of PUA) don't work in long term relationships? And why do you believe they only work on "damaged" women? I think your nerd-shaming is unkind and you should check your privilege. I was born with privilege - genes that would make me super tall, give me a symmetric face, intelligence and a "devil may care" attitude. A…
This is brilliant. I wish I had time to write more. A few points. The time tested old school way to avoid this problem is to limit openness and impose internal structure. The long lasting subcultures of old, namely the ancient mystery schools and the fraternal orders that flourished from the Renaissance until roughly the post-WWII era, were initiatory orders with oaths, degrees, and governing bodies. Sometimes they w…
> The time tested old school way to avoid this problem is to limit openness and impose internal structure. The long lasting subcultures of old, namely the ancient mystery schools and the fraternal orders that flourished from the Renaissance until roughly the post-WWII era, were initiatory orders with oaths, degrees, and governing bodies. A thoughtful and interesting observation. I wonder how much truth there is to it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the Red Pill movement , PUA, MGTOW, manosphere, men's rights as new movements/subcultures I would have a hard time qualifying re-brandings of misogyny as subcultures. Misogyny is traditional, normative and reactionary; subcultures are non-normative by definition.
I would have a hard time qualifying re-brandings of misogyny as subcultures. They're subcultures. Just because they're "normative and reactionary" doesn't make them less so. Sadly, they're cases of opposition to mainstream misogyny with extreme misogyny. (Not to say that all of MRA is misogyny. Gender injustice is such a complex topic that it's inaccurate to believe that it would fall entirely on one "side", or even…
If, using the article's terms, the sociopaths have already exploited its potential for financial benefit to its maximum extent, and if this expression of culture is the dominant, normative expression of culture for its cultural domain, then it is not a subculture, even when you put a new, fancy name on top.
"Subcultures were the main creative cultural force from roughly 1975 to 2000, when they stopped working. Why?" His chart [1] indicates where the 1975 date came from. He distinguishes between 1960s "counterculture" and later "subcultures". That's somewhat artificial. The 1920s also had subcultures - the Jazz Age, flappers, etc. Prior to the 1920s, there wasn't enough mass disposable income for such frippery. The 1930s…
>Outside of music, the main legacy of the hippie movement is that everyone wears jeans. Well - that and the environmental movement, including sustainable utilities. And some parts of feminism. And recycling. And organic food. And possibly Apple and even Google, if you don't think about it too hard. >The legacy of punk is industrial interior design I'm having a hard time getting from spitting in the mosh pit to Herman…
Sociopaths.
This article was frustrating for me; I didn't find much disagreeable, but actual take aways were lacking. > Specific strategies for sociopathy are outside the scope of this metablog post—and the scope of this book. How are they out of scope if that's what you're advocating? A bit TOO meta for me; with little actionable takeaway. But not a bad topic to chase down, i just wish there was more meat to it. Maybe I misunde…
the writing has to be somewhat vague in order to get people talking about it, and the author succeeded as evidenced by it being here .
And certainly being sociopathic, or "slightly evil" are hardly actionable things, and are short sighted solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you believe that sending signals of masculinity, social status and high value (the core elements of PUA) don't work in long term relationships? And why do you believe they only work on "damaged" women? I think your nerd-shaming is unkind and you should check your privilege. I was born with privilege - genes that would make me super tall, give me a symmetric face, intelligence and a "devil may care" attitude. A…
Because they're false signals. These are low status males faking high status, and you just can't fake your way through a long term relationship.
If a man is spitting game, looks good, is banging an attractive woman and confident that if she moves on he can move on to the next one, it's pretty tough to describe him as anything other than high status.
The learnability of a signal doesn't make it false. A lot of people just find it threatening that becoming attractive to them is simply a learnable technique, rather than a signal of what a special individual they are.
All the elements of the movement evolution are there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're false signals. These are low status males faking high status, and you just can't fake your way through a long term relationship.
Status is, almost by definition, the epitome of something where "fake it til you make it" works. Once you are regarded by others as having high status, you then have high status. If a man is spitting game, looks good, is banging an attractive woman and confident that if she moves on he can move on to the next one, it's pretty tough to describe him as anything other than high status. The learnability of a signal doesn…
But, there are also a number of schlubby, boring, low-status guys who read PUA material, play the "cocky comedy" and numbers game at a bar, and who end up bitter and rejected. They may even get a reputation as being that "creepy pick-up artist type." You can only fake being high-status so much.
The better "game" books will tell you how to raise your status. Models by Mark Manson does this. They will talk about lifting weights, how to dress well, building a social group where you get invited to house parties, finding a status hierarchy where you can be a winner, cultivating interests that allow you to be a good conversationalist, etc, etc.
Status is, almost by definition, the epitome of something where "fake it til you make it" works. Once you are regarded by others as having high status, you then have high status.
Yes and no. Any status avenue that is too easy, gets overpopulated and becomes low status. It is not like it is easy to be regarded as having high status by other people. You have to find some edge and work at it, or else get very lucky. It's hard for me to think of someone who wasn't naturally good looking or athletic, who got their high-status through faking it rather than by working at it.