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 -
Trigger warning - this is related to pornographic material
Lily Philips is an onlyfans model who slept with 100 guys in a single day. She is from the UK and does not have the background of a typical pornstar from the looks of it. Popular Youtube video maker Joshua Pieters made a documentary around it with her in it where at one point she just cracks where she gets a hint of what she just did, in trying to sleep with more guys than most friend circles do in a few lifetimes all for the sake of being edgy.
The clip has gained traction and I feel bad about the girl. Some Christian women are asking for her to be forgiven and taken back under gods grace whilst the Tate Brothers asked their followers to go undercover in her gangbang and literally preach the gospel to a cum infested e celeb. Hell this is the first time I have seen either of them show regret for having ran an onlyfans studio.
Lily and her friends have done similar things before but I cannot find any of it since any mention of her name brings up thousands of links about what she did this week. How do you even describe what she did given that she wants to do a 1000 in a day despite breaking down on camera? The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because Riley Reid, another adult entertainer did this too.
edit - removed a question about religiosity, since I think it came off in bad faith which is not my intent at all as a religous person
Here's an interesting question that occurs to me, inspired by this post:
Is promiscuity worse when it's public or when it's private?
I'm inclined to think that we reached a social consensus that public promiscuity is worse than private promiscuity. ("As long as they keep it in the privacy of their own bedroom", laws against obscenity, etc.) But I'm also inclined to think that that social consensus is wrong. Yes, there are special types of damage done by public promiscuity - "normalization", corruption of bystanders, etc. But there are also special types of damage done by private promiscuity, and I'm inclined to say that they are much worse.
Everyone here can laugh it up about the men who'll marry these open prostitutes. But, y'know - at least they'll know what they're getting. It's not exactly a viable secret to keep. This doesn't seem, to me, nearly as corrosive to the social fabric as the general social expectation that even normie religious women will have some sexual history that they don't need to disclose to their husband.
My instinct is that it is actually better and less sexually immoral for a woman to be a clownish slut and publicly document a farcical orgy centered on herself than it is for her to act chaste and traditional but have a single one-night-stand she never tells another soul about. It is better to unconsciously offer oneself up as a cautionary tale about rough living than it is to consciously erode the trust between the sexes. I do not find that the cases like Aella blackpill me nearly as much as women in explicitly Christian/conservative contexts who accidentally let on that their morals are looser than they realize. It's like the difference people point to between Donald Trump, who's repulsive, but openly so, and a more classically dishonest politician.
A car's value plummets as soon as it's driven off the lot. Provided, I have no interest (in this metaphor) in purchasing a used car - but I have no quarrel with used car dealers, per se. It's about the integrity of the thing.
I thought hiding that was the point, though.
Normie religious/straight marriage laws and rules are all about managing competing interests, are optimal if you assume you don't actually have love up front, and help keep the marriage together should the desire in learning how to love not be equal among partners. They work even better if/when the woman is not economically useful.
But modern society turns this into a trap for the men in the relationship! If you ask with the tacit statement that you'll be offended by your future wife "having cheated on you before the relationship even begins, what a sinful broad", what do you think your wife going to say? It's the spear counterpart of unintentionally selecting for assholes, where what you're doing here is excluding women who aren't intending to lie to you (which are the ones you actually want... right? Or maybe not; I wouldn't know- is the 'virgin experience' really an emergent property of virginity?).
From a biological standpoint, I want to minimize the chance I end up raising another man's child (if I'm going to put effort into kids I want them to actually be mine). I think I have a better chance of doing that by emphasizing "my wife feels safe telling me things", but my biology hasn't yet resisted me for dating a non-virgin and people tell me this occurs magically, so...
Another analogy that occurs to me is the dsyfunctionally adversarial relationship between employers and applicants. An expectation emerges among the applicants that it's acceptable to lie while applying for a job. The employers tacitly accept this; they don't punish the dishonesty, and instead act dishonestly themselves, asking for qualifications that are impossible or at least implausible, reinforcing the emerging norm that it's acceptable for the applicants to lie. And so it becomes quite difficult indeed to determine if the applicant is actually qualified for the job. The people have collectively failed. Thanks, Moloch. (There are other factors at play there, of course.)
I thought I already explained this in the previous post, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm uninterested in nonvirgins as partners, but the moral offense to me comes in when someone tries to pull one over on me. My whole point here is that I'm not cursing the women who honestly filter themselves out for me, as I consider this more honorable than trying to subvert the filter. That can't mean that having a filter is itself wrong; that's an absurd modernist notion, like saying that hiring decisions shouldn't take ability to do the job into account. If you put up a sign that says "looking for qualified drivers" and you get a bunch of qualified drivers and a bunch of liars, then sure, the people who didn't show up because they weren't willing to lie about their ability to drive are far more virtuous than the liars, but that doesn't mean that you should hire them to drive; it means that you should try to figure out which of your applicants are telling the truth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link