The embarrassing thing is the is/ought distinction is exactly what you are (supposedly) describing here: that values are not states of the world.

They are never given by the mere fact someone thinks them. Or than many people belief them. Rather they are a logic which is given irrespective of what exists, which is how values and ethics are still binding, even when people don't enact them or agree with them.

The "transcendent" nature of values destroys your essentialist line of argument.

Sexual purity and virginity are important values in all religions again - what is to be done in cases of impurity is a social custom and is different. — Agustino

At the level you argue this, the popularity of them throughout history, they are only social customs. Just because a people believe certain values, it doesn't mean they are true. You are making the pathetic sort of argument as the individualistic Westerners who proclaim an action is right becasue the happen to think so.

Yeah, and it's interesting to speculate further on how it pans out. Regardless of the outcome of the election, this reproductively disadvantaged cohort aren't going anywhere and their relative numbers are likely to increase as the wealth gap increases and technology advances. As polygyny is an inherently unstable form of sociosexual organization, certainly in a democracy, it may turn out to be the bug in the system of the neo-liberal enterprise that leads to its demise. My tentative prediction is that we are either headed towards authoritarianism in the states (with a Trump or equivalent at the helm), in which the gap is actually likely to balloon and then burst in serious social upheaval, or the US reverts back to a more enforced egalitarianism like social democratic Europe that reduces the wealth gap and thus the reproductive gap. You then get a kind of irony where what is most in the Alt-Right's interest is something like the Bernie Sander's revolution. The caveat here is that that only applies to the economics. A social-conservatism with more emphasis on families, reduced levels of divorce, and less licentiousness would also suit. Not sure though of the extent that those two can be combined. — Baden

I don't think angry virgins are powerful enough to do anything tbh. Men don't really have any power in that domain, least of all undesirable men.

I tend to think technological shifts will make many of the debates we have now irrelevant and dislodge us from our most basic anthropological moorings. The structure of the family and reproduction, and the way basic human relationships are carried out, is about to topple, for a number of reasons.

I'd say power is a much better description in this context. It is the power of the man which is protected-- his wife cannot leave him, cannot be without him, cannot partake in sexual relations with anyone but him, etc.,etc. Society gives him the right to have what he wants (her) for the remainder of his life.

For the angry undesirable man, I think this idea is quite powerful. If society were to simultaneously demand life-long partnerships and stop and roll back women's rights to one degree of another, he would (seemingly) have a chance. He might become desirable, either as an economic or a local authority figure. Then, if he does find someone, society would proclaim he will have her for so longs he wants.

I'd say power is a much better description in this context. It is the power of the man which is protected-- his wife cannot leave him, cannot be without him, cannot partake in sexual relations with anyone but him, etc.,etc. Society gives him the right to have what he wants (her) for the remainder of his life. — TheWillowOfDarkness

?

Men don't get any of that, I'm not sure what you're talking about. An undesirable man won't be married in the first place anyway. Do men want that? I don't know, maybe some? But I think women tend to overestimate their own importance in the eyes of men, as men do in the eyes of women.

The structures are changing and what people want seems to be changing with it. Yes some men want a return to an era where they were valued as heads of family and productive job holders. But the alt right by and large seems to want more radical, risky things.

I agree with TGW that what you outlined seems a very plausible (at least partial) explanation of what's motivating this horde of angry white working class males. Makes a lot of sense actually.

I also think Francis Fukuyama's notion of the desire for 'recognition' has a certain explanatory power when assessing the driving force behind the growing hostility of this demographic. The dignity that this group once enjoyed has been eroding for quite some time, and we're seeing some blowback now. I think there are many people who will forego material comfort and well-being - to the point of sacrificing their lives if necessary - for the sake of more ethereal values like honor and respect.

Incidentally this phenomena would also appear to shed light on BLM and other marginalized groups' struggle for recognition, as well as hostility to the domination of the West in places like the Middle East. In China too they remember the Hundred Years of Humiliation and use that memory to inspire the current generation to do what they must to prevent it from happening again. Historic and more contemporary examples abound.

So I see the biological, economic and more incorporeal psychological aspects as overlapping and reinforcing, rather than an either/or matter in which only one explanation is right. People will fight to the death over material and non-material things alike, and I think an awareness of these different aspects of human existence may help us understand and address the pressing issues of racial and class and national antagonisms.

I tend to think technological shifts will make many of the debates we have now irrelevant and dislodge us from our most basic anthropological moorings. The structure of the family and reproduction, and the way basic human relationships are carried out, is about to topple, for a number of reasons. — The Great Whatever

I'd agree to this extent: If it comes to the point where technology produces for men an equally or more satisfying alternative to natural sex then the whole dynamic gets pushed off its axis and we could end up in a very odd place.

I'd agree. Undesirable men have never got what they wanted, not even when men were economic providers and heads of family.

But I'm talking more on the level of an appealing fiction. In an idea of what what are supposed to get or status we are meant to have.

The social promise of power though, to their group (wanting men) over another (women, whether they keep wanting or not), can be attractive even to those who never attain it.

To me this seems to reflect the alt-right to its foundation. Not merely on respect to positions of women and men sometimes expressed, but across the board-- it wants a social authority, a promise of who gets to enact power over others, not countered or restricted by pathetic concerns such as individual's rights, respect of agency, democracy, equality, etc.,etc.

I just find it strange that BLM makes a concerted effort to dissociate itself from ALL white people, regardless of class, educational background, or any other relevant issue that could possibly make the 'movement' more sympathetic, at least to poor and marginalized white people. The spokespeople that I've read or listened to do this very aggressively too, bludgeoning white people (again, ALL white people) for being the beneficiaries of some ubiquitous 'privilege' floating around them that they apparently can neither fathom nor appreciate. And for poor white folk struggling to afford the basic necessities of life, this seems bizarre -- and then, to make matters worse, even suggesting how strange or disconnected from reality it is results in loud cries of " RACIST!!!', apparently for questioning the dogmatic narrative. — Erik

The point is to avoid the equivocation of what's happening to black people with others, so allowing it to just be passed of as "an issue which affects anyone." When that happens, awareness of what's happening to black people gets lost.

If someone raises just how much of an impact actions of the police have on the black community, it will frequently get dismiss as "just crime" or "just poverty," in a way that undermines efforts to address the issue-- it all becomes part of the endemic problems of "crime" and "poverty" which are seen to have no solution, nothing to do with our major institutions and the specific people who suffer in these instance.

So it is not that a poor white person will necessary be better off or be less impacted by police action (sometimes they suffer just as badly or worse than a poor black person), but rather that, in the case of this issue (the black community in relation to the police), it is about how a black person life is affected.

If we ignore this, if we try to say it the same for anyone else, we are ignoring black people are affected in these instances. We are burying that they are the one's harmed in these instances. (usually, to the effect of saying there is no problem with how black people are treated in society).

Yeah, that sounds right. But I think value for authority is the norm in human life generally. So it's only in the context of an oddly liberal society that it comes off as dangerous.

They've tended to agree on these values for very straightforward evolutionary reasons. It's in men's reproductive interest not to be cuckolded. Those that were would tend to nurture the genes of more cunning rivals and fail to pass their own on. Hence the evolved tendency in men to value faithfulness and fear promiscuity in their female mates. The virgin / slut dichotomy is built in to the male psyche. As for women, it should be obvious that promiscuity in men is a threat to their and their offspring's monopoly on men's resources. You don't need any transcendental magic to explain this stuff. — Baden

I perfectly agree that there also exists a biological basis for sexual practices. I probably disagree with you a little over the nuts and bolts of it, but it's somewhat as you put it. However - that is not what I was talking about. Man has both a biological and a spiritual side. The spiritual will reconcile and fulfill man's biological nature as well as his spiritual. But the spiritual is different. Man and women have a different biological nature when it comes to sexual preferences: man is by nature polygamous, as this maximises his chances of developing as many offspring as possible. No aspect of his biology can restrict his reproduction - he can always, if the females are available, reproduce. Due to the fact that a woman cannot go from man to man and give birth - because she requires sustenance and protection during pregnancy, which lasts for a significant time, and poses significant risks - she by nature will be monogamous. Out of this biological difference between men and women, there can arise many conflicts - that I agree. This is assessment is justified by: (1) the stronger emphasis on sexual purity for women across all the world's cultures, (2) the fact that women are more frequently the victims of cheating, (3) the existence of large social groups (Middle East) where polygamy for men is acceptable, (4) the lower number of unfaithful women in comparison to men.

However - from a spiritual point of view, it is not reproduction that matters, and that drives practices, but rather intimacy and love. From love's point of view monogamy is demanded for both men and women, and is necessary for the fulfilment of their spiritual nature. Today's problems do not stem from biology - indeed it is precisely a wilful, spiritual betrayal of biology that is the cause. Young women do not reproduce - the average age of marriage and child-bearing is getting higher and higher, 27+. The age of reproduction used to be much much lower, down to as low as 21. There isn't a reproductory rush towards rich males to ensure sustenance of offspring. There is a rush towards rich males to ensure what progressive's love - lots of parties, lots of drinking, lots of drugs, lots of "fun", lots of promiscuity, lots of holidays in exotic places. That's what these women do until they're 27, they're not concerned about reproduction (it would in fact be a much better thing if they were concerned with reproduction) That's why the rush is towards the rich. Take away the drinking, drugs, and fun - say by looking at a rich religious man, and you'll see a lot less, if any, of those young girls rushing to him. They're only rushing to the new, progressive rich, not to the old, aristocratic wealth, which still remains largely socially conservative, and which remains anathema to these progressive women. So this is all a SPIRITUAL disorder, which needs to be understood in spiritual terms, not in biological terms. Biological terms fail to see the source of the problem, which has very little to do with reproduction, and much more to do with wilful spiritual rebellion and lack of piety.

But I think value for authority is the norm in human life generally. So it's only in the context of an oddly liberal society that it comes off as dangerous. — The Great Whatever

Good point ;)

I understand what you're saying, and largely agree with it, but my point in bringing up BLM was not to dispute the disproportionate level of violence and oppression that people of color receive at the hands of police, but rather to point out that at a time when many white folk like myself were inclined to stand with this group against injustice, we were purposely pushed away and told that we were part of the problem.

I'm thinking particularly of what I felt to be a grotesque article accusing all white people of ipso facto being racists and beneficiaries of 'white privilege'. The article was written by a wealthy, black, and well-connected college professor (Michael Eric Dyson), no less. Now, it may be my imagination running wild, but it seems like he was using his platform in the NY Times to make a concerted effort to drive a wedge between whites and blacks, when issues of economic background and social status could have served as a rallying cry to bring people of different races together under the banner of fighting against a corrupt establishment, of which the police (also blue-collar workers) are paid to protect and serve. And his was not an isolated case but one of many that harped on similarly divisive themes through major media outlets.

When working class white stiffs finally started complaining about the economic elites who dominate the country (instead of 'black welfare queens' or other traditional scapegoats), most of whom are white, an attempt was made to minimize the vast differences in power and influence amongst whites by welding us into a monolithic block. My take, or perhaps my hope, is that poor people of all races come to see that they have more in common with each other than with elites like Michael Eric Dyson. But I'm rambling unnecessarily now...

Now of course these aren't entirely related matters (police oppression against blacks and growing economic inequality), but the economic aspect - specifically the plight of working class people regardless of race - has been almost entirely ignored in favor of a racial narrative by those news outlets which hold the most sway. It just seemed a bit fishy to me, almost like it was purposely contrived given the timing of other things going on concurrently that were bringing awareness to global and national socio-economic issues. But again, I'll chalk all this up to my paranoia rather than some elaborate scheme of the rich to divide poor people against each other. Perhaps racial identity is more important to most people than class identity, and I should just accept that this will always be the case.