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 -
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.
To make this argument work, you have to consider the problem with private promiscuity to be just that it's a lack of honesty. Then it's only that to the extent those involved placed some idiosyncratic value on avoiding the act. Many people have such standards (such as religious diet restrictions) which outsiders don't have much reason to care about.
On the other hand, if there's some intrinsic reason promiscuity is bad, women who do it publicly aren't only doing the same thing but honest. They're suspect because its publicity creates an added inappropriate relation, now with a public who shouldn't be involved at all, above the men involved.
None of this is to say you should be tolerant of the presentable slattern either...but treating it as just a matter of hypocrisy demeans the issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link