Alaric on 2010s feminism and sexual norms. He sees it as a concrete, sharp break in 2014 alien to anything that came before. which almost overnight made anti-male sentiment the most pervasive cultural force in the Western world.
2014 saw a huge top-down feminist media campaign both motivating and caused by government initiatives and international institutions. This was the true start of Woke as a feminist and internationalist movement, before it became more racialist and parochial.
2014 redefined consent and made rape and street harassment, low and falling for decades in the American mainstream, centerpieces of American social consciousness.
The feminist revolution quickly became very silly (remember manspreading, mansplaining, phallocentrism?).
The gender war permanently warped many young adults' ability to interact with the opposite sex (COVID lockdowns hitting in the transition to adulthood made this even worse).
Discourse on the deaths of marriage and dating norms ignores that these were not abandoned but are actively being killed.
Men have become framed as rapists-by-default; this message is implanted in schools, universities, and workplaces, with the result that men's motives in all interactions with women are considered suspect. To avoid this, many men infantilize and feminize themselves.
Gender war myths dominate media - types of men (frat bros, musicians, nerds) are defined in terms of expected sexual crimes, and a white knight narrative (sexually aggressive [white] man, innocent girl, outside actor protects girl) became a standard [extremely contrived] trope.
This fictional white knight narrative killed the sexually-loose hookup culture of 2000s college campuses and was completely new, not an organic evolution of pre-2014 American media.
If the post-2014 gender war rendered male sexuality borderline criminal, it did the opposite for female, providing unconditional support for female sexual expression, even prostitution. Sexual desirability became men's chief virtue.
The one bit of female sexuality not celebrated is sincere attraction and love for men; genuine, mutual love between a heterosexual couple went from commonplace to rare in media [cf, Frozen, Modern Family.
Trying to appeal to men has become taboo for young women, hence the bizarre sexual aposematism of zoomer women.
I don't think the 2014 revolution was as unprecedented as Alaric believes; here's Scott Aaronson talking about how he wished he'd been born a woman and tried to castrate himself (in the 90s) out of horror that a woman might realize he found them attractive.
Thread with excerpts from Richard Pipes' Property and Freedom (1999). Pipes is a historian of Russia, and the thesis of the book is that private property, as something distinct and protected from public power and sovereignty, is indispensable to human freedom.
One of the fundamental differences between Russia and the rest of Europe lay in the weak development of private property; one of the major themes of Western philosophical history is the benefits and drawbacks of private property; Russian philosophers unanimously condemn it.
Freedom, as used by Pipes, includes political freedom, legal freedom, economic freedom, and personal rights. It does not include the right to public support ("freedom from want"); such 'rights' are at best a moral claim and at worst an unearned privilege.
Red state pension funds tend to vote with management if management is providing good returns (ie, doing their job); blue state pension funds tend to vote with management if the company does leftist things (ie, ESG, or not paying CEOs very much).
This reflects a general difference in attitude towards institutions; rightists prefer institutions do what they were created for (eg police should fight crime, the military should fight wars, companies should make money doing their business, schools should teach)...
...while left-wingers want every institution to have pushing the Party Line as its #1 priority (extremely totalitarian in that regard). The formers produces a better society, the latter is more politically powerful but destroys everything in the long run.
Training an LLM to be more politically evenhanded (as opposed to left-wing, as almost all LLMs are - so more right-wing) makes it more egalitarian in how it values the lives of people of different races without training to do so. PCT = Political Consistency Training.
LLMs trained in this way also value members of different religions, political creeds, and public figures coded left vs right more equally.
Almost all notable LLMs except Grok are left-wing on the US political spectrum, but in a very particular way, sort of like a superhumanly-knowledgeable Redditor or Wikipedia editor from the year 2018.
Since 2009, medical schools have had to prove they sufficiently discriminate against white men ("achieve mission-appropriate diversity outcomes") to get accredited.
White men are now significantly underrepresented among med school students.
Fortunately, competence isn't that important in doctors, so purging white men in favor of "underrepresented minorities" (blacks, LatinX) who can't pass clinical exams shouldn't matter.
European IQ's rising due to natural selection (as measured by PGS) continuing into the modern era whereas it stalled in East Asia could have been predicted from Gregory Clark's genealogical studies in both regions.
Clark found that "survival of the richest" was the rule in England from 1300-1880 or so, with huge differences in surviving offspring by class and this was much weaker in Qing China because higher class women didn't have more kids due to elite polygamy.
(IQ is not the only trait that goes into income or wealth, of course, so selection for wealth is only indirectly selection for IQ and also selects for a package of other traits, some of which are collective goods like IQ and some of which are not.)
The Bancroft Prize (one of the most prestigious history awards, given by a panel of historians for works on diplomacy or the history of the Americas) was given in 2000 to someone claiming guns were really rare in colonial America (he committed fraud by changing quotes).
This should have been obvious nonsense to anyone who knows anything at all about colonial America, of course, and yet a panel of professional historians thought it was work at the pinnacle of the field until some random blogger pointed out all the fraud.