It’s not that people hate your ex and want to downvote all sympathy for her. Rather, this is just one of many manifestations of our ongoing culture war. Roughly speaking, we have two teams:
Team Blue is on board with romantic love and feminism and emphasizes personal autonomy. On this view, a successful love relationship is about finding a person you click with, which could mean any number of quirky things. The problem with your marriage is that your wife was never that into you—which sucked for her. Now that she’s found a person she clicks with, the seeds have been sown for more future happiness for all. No-one is really at fault, especially since you have both done your best to minimize disruption for the children.
Team Red is sympathetic to “red pill” advice (Athol Kay etc.), emphasizes biology and is less individualistic. A successful relationship is not primarily about a unique connection between unique individuals—rather it is about acting in accordance with an already existing model of what human males and females desire in each other. A particular necessity is that the male should, where appropriate, display confident and assertive behavior. On this view, our modern society has fallen into a trap (we have some harmful memes floating around, or whatever) where many males become doormats—which makes them unattractive to their wives or potential wives. What ruined your marriage is not that you were somehow inherently the wrong man for your wife—but that society failed to teach you to be assertive when appropriate. (She thought she could bring her lover into your home and you would just conveniently scurry away. This is how little she thought of you.)
You totally could express sympathy to your ex within a Team Red perspective but it would go something like this: “I feel for your wife. She couldn’t control her biology and feel attracted to a man who was not displaying sufficient alpha traits.” In practice, Team Red views do sometimes come with a certain regrettable bitterness towards women—especially wives who leave their husbands. So a Red-ist may tend to read sympathy to such a woman, if not explicitly framed as Red-ist, as Blue-ist propaganda.
Anyway, the point is that Team Red and Team Blue are locked in a low-grade war on LessWrong. Comments on the relevant issues will often have downvotes as well as upvotes. The comment by shminux is currently at +9, 76% positive, while the comment by Viliam Búr is at +9, 68% positive.
If you are a partisan of this, it is hard not to downvote the opposing team because you feel that they are directly harming people with their counterproductive advice and toxic memes. I don’t know if we can work out a downvote ceasefire.
I think “personal autonomy” is a pretty loaded term. I think plenty of people in the PUA/biology camp would also say that they are for personal autonomy.
They are likely to be libertarians politically and want that kind of personal autonomy. Feminist on the other hand are rather liberal and want another kind of personal autonomy.
The comment by shminux is currently at +9, 76% positive, while the comment by Viliam Búr is at +9, 68% positive. If you are a partisan of this, it is hard not to downvote the opposing team because you feel that they are directly harming people with their counterproductive advice and toxic memes.
I’d like to say that I believe our comments are not contradictory. In my opinion they merely highlight the different aspects of the situation. To simplify it, shminux said that Gunnar’s ex was unhappy in the relationship, so she finally optimized for herself, and maybe because of her choice at the end both will be more happy. I said that Gunnar did some mistakes, and in an alternate reality where he would have and use some “Red Pill” knowledge, the relationship could have been happy for both sides. These statements can both be true in the same universe. The contradiction comes at the level of connotations, whether a passive or active approach is suggested (accepting what happened and hoping for a better opportunity, or strategically learning and changing oneself).
The only thing I object against here is treating “attraction” (of a woman towards a man) as a fixed fact, instead of something the man can (and should, for both partners’ sake) influence by his behavior. But even this is not explicitly recommended here; it just irradiates as a background assumption from some comments. So speaking for myself, I don’t see “counterproductive advice and toxic memes” here.
My “mission” here was to show Gunnar how his situation seems from my perspective; to offer a potentially useful model. Which parts he agrees or disagrees with, that’s his choice which I fully respect. I just want him to act from conscious choice, not from ignorance; but he already was exploring in this direction. Okay, mission accomplished.
(I am kinda surprised about the karma of my top-level comment; I expected it to be close to zero. Even now I think is was not actually caused by the popularity of the presented framework or by my quality of presentation, but mostly by the context of the article: one LW member had a problem, another LW member was trying to help him, so the other members were more likely to upvote and less likely to downvote, even if they didn’t agree completely.)
I wasn’t aware of this sub factions. Are they real? Are they aware of the distinction?
I tought downvoting for political reasons (and this is kind of sub-politics here) are looked down upon. Problem is: sub-politics is only possible if you already active and have quite some karma to spend.
“Team red” is reactionary gender ideology group, the “reaction” portion being primarily against 3rd wave feminism. It’s a segment of the “manosphere” with ties to the Men’s Rights movement and Pick Up Artists. The ideas and values of the “Red” side here are rather similar to the views of old fashioned patriarchal conservatism, but more explicitly articulated and framed around the notion that feminism is the dominant culture (similar to how feminist thought often frames patriarchy as the dominant culture). Being reactionaries, they are of course aware of the distinction—in fact, they created the construct describing the distinction.
The notion of there being a Blue side is a construct of the Redpill subculture. While the Red side actively considers itself the “Red” side and uses “blue” to describe feminism, the majority of people who identify as feminists are unaware of this Red/Blue distinction because the “Red” side is primarily an internet subculture.
The “red” / “blue’ distinction is a reference to The Matrix. It is meant to imply that 3rd wave feminists, along with Western culture at large, prefers pleasant romantic lies to harsh biological reality when it comes to gender and sexuality.
downvoting for political reasons
At the risk of seeming to take sides, I will say that there seems there are a few highly active users with reactionary ideas on Lesswrong who seem to think this rule is optional. (Which is not meant to imply that all reactionary users are doing this, or that only reactionaries do this, only that there is clearly an active group of reactionaries who is systematically doing this.)
Although, in this particular case, it’s also possible that people just thought that shminux’s comments would be hurtful for you to hear at this time.
Lots of good points here. In addition to the Matrix analogy (which, as you point out, is hardly a neutral way to frame the divide), keep in mind that in the US, blue and red are also the conventional colors of the left and the right.
We continue to have our little ‘reactionary paradox’ in that the census results show overwhelming support for feminism, but the discussion on the ground seems oddly ‘red’. As you have already suggested this effect might be partially explained by LessWrong’s fondness for contrarians.
I wasn’t aware of these sub factions. Are they real?
It’s an idealization, to be sure. And I don’t think there are cliques meeting in smoke-filled IRC-channels to plot downvoting sprees. But still, I think my comment above describes something real.
It’s not that people hate your ex and want to downvote all sympathy for her. Rather, this is just one of many manifestations of our ongoing culture war. Roughly speaking, we have two teams:
Team Blue is on board with romantic love and feminism and emphasizes personal autonomy. On this view, a successful love relationship is about finding a person you click with, which could mean any number of quirky things. The problem with your marriage is that your wife was never that into you—which sucked for her. Now that she’s found a person she clicks with, the seeds have been sown for more future happiness for all. No-one is really at fault, especially since you have both done your best to minimize disruption for the children.
Team Red is sympathetic to “red pill” advice (Athol Kay etc.), emphasizes biology and is less individualistic. A successful relationship is not primarily about a unique connection between unique individuals—rather it is about acting in accordance with an already existing model of what human males and females desire in each other. A particular necessity is that the male should, where appropriate, display confident and assertive behavior. On this view, our modern society has fallen into a trap (we have some harmful memes floating around, or whatever) where many males become doormats—which makes them unattractive to their wives or potential wives. What ruined your marriage is not that you were somehow inherently the wrong man for your wife—but that society failed to teach you to be assertive when appropriate. (She thought she could bring her lover into your home and you would just conveniently scurry away. This is how little she thought of you.)
You totally could express sympathy to your ex within a Team Red perspective but it would go something like this: “I feel for your wife. She couldn’t control her biology and feel attracted to a man who was not displaying sufficient alpha traits.” In practice, Team Red views do sometimes come with a certain regrettable bitterness towards women—especially wives who leave their husbands. So a Red-ist may tend to read sympathy to such a woman, if not explicitly framed as Red-ist, as Blue-ist propaganda.
Anyway, the point is that Team Red and Team Blue are locked in a low-grade war on LessWrong. Comments on the relevant issues will often have downvotes as well as upvotes. The comment by shminux is currently at +9, 76% positive, while the comment by Viliam Búr is at +9, 68% positive.
If you are a partisan of this, it is hard not to downvote the opposing team because you feel that they are directly harming people with their counterproductive advice and toxic memes. I don’t know if we can work out a downvote ceasefire.
Methinks Team Red are right about certain people and Team Blue are right about other people.. I guess the latter are a majority among the general population but the former are a majority among the kind of people who read LW.
I’ve downvoted comments that sound overconfident about what kind of person the OP’s ex-wife is.
As I mentioned elsewhere, beware of other-optimizing.
I think “personal autonomy” is a pretty loaded term. I think plenty of people in the PUA/biology camp would also say that they are for personal autonomy.
They are likely to be libertarians politically and want that kind of personal autonomy. Feminist on the other hand are rather liberal and want another kind of personal autonomy.
I’d like to say that I believe our comments are not contradictory. In my opinion they merely highlight the different aspects of the situation. To simplify it, shminux said that Gunnar’s ex was unhappy in the relationship, so she finally optimized for herself, and maybe because of her choice at the end both will be more happy. I said that Gunnar did some mistakes, and in an alternate reality where he would have and use some “Red Pill” knowledge, the relationship could have been happy for both sides. These statements can both be true in the same universe. The contradiction comes at the level of connotations, whether a passive or active approach is suggested (accepting what happened and hoping for a better opportunity, or strategically learning and changing oneself).
The only thing I object against here is treating “attraction” (of a woman towards a man) as a fixed fact, instead of something the man can (and should, for both partners’ sake) influence by his behavior. But even this is not explicitly recommended here; it just irradiates as a background assumption from some comments. So speaking for myself, I don’t see “counterproductive advice and toxic memes” here.
My “mission” here was to show Gunnar how his situation seems from my perspective; to offer a potentially useful model. Which parts he agrees or disagrees with, that’s his choice which I fully respect. I just want him to act from conscious choice, not from ignorance; but he already was exploring in this direction. Okay, mission accomplished.
(I am kinda surprised about the karma of my top-level comment; I expected it to be close to zero. Even now I think is was not actually caused by the popularity of the presented framework or by my quality of presentation, but mostly by the context of the article: one LW member had a problem, another LW member was trying to help him, so the other members were more likely to upvote and less likely to downvote, even if they didn’t agree completely.)
I wasn’t aware of this sub factions. Are they real? Are they aware of the distinction?
I tought downvoting for political reasons (and this is kind of sub-politics here) are looked down upon. Problem is: sub-politics is only possible if you already active and have quite some karma to spend.
“Team red” is reactionary gender ideology group, the “reaction” portion being primarily against 3rd wave feminism. It’s a segment of the “manosphere” with ties to the Men’s Rights movement and Pick Up Artists. The ideas and values of the “Red” side here are rather similar to the views of old fashioned patriarchal conservatism, but more explicitly articulated and framed around the notion that feminism is the dominant culture (similar to how feminist thought often frames patriarchy as the dominant culture). Being reactionaries, they are of course aware of the distinction—in fact, they created the construct describing the distinction.
The notion of there being a Blue side is a construct of the Redpill subculture. While the Red side actively considers itself the “Red” side and uses “blue” to describe feminism, the majority of people who identify as feminists are unaware of this Red/Blue distinction because the “Red” side is primarily an internet subculture.
The “red” / “blue’ distinction is a reference to The Matrix. It is meant to imply that 3rd wave feminists, along with Western culture at large, prefers pleasant romantic lies to harsh biological reality when it comes to gender and sexuality.
At the risk of seeming to take sides, I will say that there seems there are a few highly active users with reactionary ideas on Lesswrong who seem to think this rule is optional. (Which is not meant to imply that all reactionary users are doing this, or that only reactionaries do this, only that there is clearly an active group of reactionaries who is systematically doing this.)
Although, in this particular case, it’s also possible that people just thought that shminux’s comments would be hurtful for you to hear at this time.
Lots of good points here. In addition to the Matrix analogy (which, as you point out, is hardly a neutral way to frame the divide), keep in mind that in the US, blue and red are also the conventional colors of the left and the right.
We continue to have our little ‘reactionary paradox’ in that the census results show overwhelming support for feminism, but the discussion on the ground seems oddly ‘red’. As you have already suggested this effect might be partially explained by LessWrong’s fondness for contrarians.
It’s an idealization, to be sure. And I don’t think there are cliques meeting in smoke-filled IRC-channels to plot downvoting sprees. But still, I think my comment above describes something real.
Previous discussion here.
It’s theoretically looked down upon, but voting is anonymous so nobody has the chance to actually look down upon people who vote that way.