George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, argues that seemingly disparate groups which form political coalitions share underlying metaphors based on family structures. On the conservative side, he says that social conservatives and libertarian conservatives don't really have conflicting agendas because both share what he calls "strict father morality." They assume that we live in a harsh and dangerous world where men have to run things in a natural hierarchy, while the womenfolk and the children have to stay subordinate to men for their own protection. Strict fathers have the task of disciplining and toughening their children for the task of becoming self-reliant adults in the harsh and dangerous world. Therefore they oppose sexual freedom, on the social conservative side, and the welfare state, on the libertarian side, because both of these tend to weaken people's character and make them less capable of personal responsibility and independence.
This organic affinity also sheds light on why PUA bloggers have started to sound like Dark Enlightenment bloggers and Neoreactionaries: By getting all that exposure to the ugly way women behave when you remove the traditional constraints on their real preferences, you can see that our conservative ancestors had a legitimate point of view when they enforced patriarchal norms to keep women in line. Women's sexual freedom basically damages their ability to maintain a stable society.
It's not clear to me why this is a better explanation than the obvious alternative from, so to speak, the other side: the PUA bloggers were already thinking of women as objects, to be used and manipulated for the benefit of men, which is right in line with a "Dark Enlightenment" view that men should be controlling them and keeping them in line. Same attitude to women, just on a societal rather than an individual scale.
In the recent discussion on supplements, I commented on how weird an alliance health stores are. They cater for clientèle with widely divergent beliefs about how their merchandise works, such as New Agers vs. biohackers. In some cases, they cater for groups with object-level disputes about their merchandise. I imagine vegans are stoked to have somewhere to buy dairy-free facsimiles of everyday foods, but they're entering into an implicit bargain with that body-builder who's walking out of the door with two kilos of whey protein.
In the case of health stores, their clientèle have a common interest which the store is satisfying: either putting esoteric substances into their bodies, or keeping commonplace substances out of their bodies. This need is enough for people to hold their noses as they put their cash down.
(I don't actually know how [my flimsy straw-man model of], say, homoeopathy advocates feel about health stores. For me, it feels like wandering into enemy territory.)
I've been thinking lately about "allies" in the social justice sense of the word: marginalised groups who have unaligned object-level interests but aligned meta-interests. Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transfolk and [miscellaneous gender-people] may have very different object-level interests, but a very strong common meta-interest relating to the social and legal status of sexual identities. They may also be marginalised along different axes, allowing for some sort of trade I don't have a good piece of terminology for. The LGBT([A-Z]).* community is an alliance. Not being part of this community, I'm hesitant to speculate on how much of a weird alliance it is, but it looks at least a little bit weird.
This has led me to think about Less Wrong as a community, in particular the following two questions:
To what extent is Less Wrong a weird alliance?
On paper, we're all here to help refine the art of human rationality, but in practice, we have a bunch of different object-level interests and common meta-interests in terms of getting things done well (i.e. "winning"). I explicitly dislike PUA, but I'll have a civil and productive discussion about anki decks with someone who has PUA-stuff as an object-level interest.
Is there scope for weird, differently-marginalised trade?
Less Wrong celebrates deviant behaviour, ostensibly as a search process for useful life-enhancing interventions, but also because we just seem to like weird stuff and have complicated relationships with social norms. Lots of other groups like weird stuff and have complicated relationships with social norms as well. Is this a common meta-interest we can somehow promote with them?