The Only Fans Nation

I keep seeing stories about Only Fans, which has seen a surge in popularity attributable to the pandemic.

The smart-left and smart-right are unified in opposing moralizing in regard to onylfans usage. Rather than moralizing , which implies imposing one’s values of how society ought to be, the emphasis is on understanding why society is the way it is, and how why individuals are motivated to make the choices they do, whether it’s using Only Fans as a consumer or a content creator on the site. There is the attempt at trying to empathize with people who may be facing economic hardship due to the virus and whose only recourse is to post content to Only Fans. The left, regardless of IQ, not surprisingly, uniformity, with the possible exception of a handful of old-school feminists, supports Only Fans ‘culture.’ But the smart-right, however, face a sort of cognitive dissonance in opposing Only Fans on traditionalist/conservative grounds but supporting or condoning it from a self-sufficiency or capitalism perspective.

However, mainstream traditional conservatives, who tend to be of average IQ, don’t face such a dilemma and oppose it unequivocally. With the exception of the popularity of Tucker, traditional conservatives, despite being a large voting bloc, are largely invisible in contemporary political discourse, and their moralizing and tendency to view complicated social issues through a reductionist good vs. bad/evil lens, is perceived as low status, even by other conservatives. In regard to Only Fans stories, comments that moralize are heavily down-voted regardless of where they are posted. But I agree with Roosh, who did a 3-hour live-stream about it, that Only Fans and related sites are objectively bad for society and men, but also the popularity of such sites reveal the extent society has decayed, at least socially. It is hard to put an intellectual spin on this.

Whereas liberals are expected (and do) take their politics very seriously and are compelled by peer pressure to check the boxes on the important social issues, the expectation nowadays for conservatives is to care about issues, but unlike the left, with a sort of detachment: you should care, but not so much that you cross the line into moralizing, which is what the left does. From The Evolution of The Right:

As opposed as the left, which takes itself too seriously in regard to cultural issues and politics, today’s right wants to project the public image of being cool and detached. No one wants to be seen as having been ‘triggered,’ which is to be too easily offended. The rise of centrist and center-right individualistic-minded moderates such as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro has made being a moral crusader less popular, at least for conservatives online.

Societal decay is to be looked at with a sense of detachment, at a distance much like an anthropologist observing the rituals of a foreign tribe, through a lens of ‘logic and reason,’ without becoming emotionally invested in the outcome. Only Fans is a social phenomenon to be studied, not something to oppose on a personal, visceral level. As popularized and epitomized by the phrase “facts don’t care about your feelings,” made popular by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who himself embodies this ‘logocentrist’ brand of conservatism that has become popular over the past 3-5 or so years, along with the IDW in general, to be personally offended by Only Fans, is to cross the line from facts to feelings.

It’s hard to pinpoint when or the trigger, but the moralizing brand of conservatism fell out of favor some time in the mid 2000s, by my best guess. Maybe it was the church scandals (such as pedo priests and mega-church grifters) and hypocrisy. Or maybe in repudiation of the legacy of George W. Bush, who used Christianity to justify pulling America into two unending wars. In ’80s and ’90s televangelists held considerable social capital. Jerry Falwell of the and Pat Robertson were household names, the former who is dead and whose organization has largely faded in relevance under his successor, and the latter who is irrelevant and a punchline as far as post-2008 conservatism is concerned. The conservative religious-right, with the exception of being a sizable and powerful voting bloc, is largely invisible/hidden in terms of cultural and political influence and status. Although Trump won evangelicals by a huge margin, as did George W. Bush, Trump seems more concerned with economic issues than fighting moral decay.

Economics dominates discourse and policy. Gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and even abortion, in the eyes of many conservative pundits and policy makers, are seen as inevitable and or not worth fighting over–those wars having long been lost. Most evangelicals oppose those things, but as far as having any power to do anything about it, are ineffectual. Such cultural concerns fall on deaf ears as far policy is convened. The assumption is, these are state’s rights issues, and that the federal government should not get too involved. Matters pertaining to national security (such as counter-terrorism, homeland security, defense, etc.) and economics (low taxes, stimulus programs, etc.) will always have priority over cultural issues, and demand urgency.

But conservatism, as an institution and political force, also faces the ideological dilemma of having to choose between social stability and the status quo, versus traditional values. Conservatives may favor the status quo even if is opposed to traditional values, in order to promote social stability and or if adopting left-wing social values confers social status (which is how you end up with conservatives now supporting gay marriage and drug legalization). Even as recently as the the ’80s, the status quo was much more aligned with traditional values, but not anymore.