This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The 'solution' to keeping your more-capable-of-violence group A under control is to keep them incapable of coordinating violence. And if possible the Group B's should keep a smallish sub-population of Group A that are loyal to Group B for whatever reason.
Thus if Group A is capable of immense violence, but they can't coordinate around shared goals or under a unified leader who can direct them against the most high-value targets, then they'll probably retain the status quo, especially if the conditions aren't too intolerable, even if it becomes increasingly obvious that Group B is incapable of preventing a violent incursion if one were to occur.
Especially with technological advances, where 3 guys in a tank are more powerful than 50 guys with rifles. Just make sure that the Group A guys in the tank are loyal to Group B!
So yeah, Group B can dominate so long as they can keep a large-scale physical confrontation off the table.
Now think about how atomized young men have become, with most of their 'friendships' being online.
Also think about how ANY male-oriented group or activity (Boy Scouts, anyone?) gets infiltrated and forced to allow in females, or crippled to a shadow of its former self.
Same for any sort of right-wing group that might actually be able to form a formidable enough front to enact serious violence if they wanted (Proud Boys?)
It COULD be interpreted as PRECISELY what the current society does. Keeps males from organizing around their capacity for violence by giving them endless distractions and disrupting any person who might be able to rally a significant number of disaffected-but-physically-capable men to his cause.
In which case, the only outlet these males would have is individual acts of semi-random violence against random members of the population. Can we say we're seeing more of that, these days?
See my thoughts here.
My basic thesis:
Unmarried women are a potent political force, but an incompetent military/martial one. If your political coalition is dependent on tons of addled females voting for them to maintain its support, it is ALSO dependent on NEVER allowing the other side to bring organized violence against them since those same females would fold instantly.
So expect a LOT of political capital to be expended on efforts to keep males from coordinating enough to actually fight back in any meaningful way.
More options
Context Copy link