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 -
In the wake of her
weaknessincredible historic strength among young men, Kamala has a new ad out on IG and SC, "Don't Get Popped":https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1847720298335948932
For those who don't want to view it, I'll transcribe the ad and set the scene: a speed dating scenario where women rate the man.
On the face of it, this seems entirely tone-deaf. The theory seems to be "vote Democratic, or we'll Lysistrata you" but I can't imagine a single man who would react in the way the campaign would want them to. Most would just roll their eyes, and, if you're a young man frustrated with dating, it would probably provoke outright hostility. So you might write it off as a clueless campaign hiring a couple of rich white women and gay men trying to imagine a way to make young men vote Harris and failing, just another example of the empathetic gap between who the campaign gets ideological inspiration from and the voters she needs to win.
The surprising bit is that the Harris campaign isn't targeting men with this but women, as indicated by ad targeting spend. My theory here is that Kamala is not offering a threat here, but selling a power fantasy. If you're a woman, vote for Harris, and you'll have a parade of men approaching you, who you can reject at will.
If anything, it's women who need to change their political philosophy to improve their dating prospects.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex. But men are the gatekeepers of relationships. It's trivial for men to fake woke beliefs in order to get sex in the urban dating environment. That's why we find so many examples of progressives who act like cads in their personal lives. It turns out that men will lie to have sex.
But women who are batshit liberals are doing themselves a big disservice. They are signalling low quality partner status and will find that, though lots of men are willing to bed them, few are willing to stick around. During my own brief experience with online dating, I swiped left on anyone who had overt political statements in their profile.
Women with unnaturally colored hair, face masks, piercings, tats, and radical beliefs will eliminate many of the highest quality men from their dating pool. They will soon learn that "all men are assholes" as they are used and dumped by a bunch of flaky woke dudes.
This is such a strange take. Those women didn't want to go on a date with men like you (conservative) and you didn't go on a date with them. Sounds like their filtering is working and you just don't like that it's a filter they care about.
Nah. It's not about politics, it's about mental illness.
I'm perfectly happy dating a liberal and they are perfectly happy dating me.
But people who signal far-left political beliefs in their profile are low value mates. (Same for far-right ones probably, although I never saw that).
Maybe these chubby purple-hair women tell themselves they wouldn't date a 6'3 chad in finance, but of course they would. They just don't pull those type of guys. They are deliberately lowering their value on the dating market with their poor signalling. In the end, they will have worse partners and worse life outcomes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link