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 -
That isn't what the words you've quoted have said. They say that is a path, not the path. Any sane pro lifer in this day and age would probably Counsel waiting until graduating high school before marrying the sweet heart and, maybe naively, they'd Counsel not having sex until then. But if you do have sex before then, and that sex does result in a pregnancy, they'd say you should not abort the pregnancy and instead raise the kid, leaning on your family and the family of the father for support in doing this which they also think should be provided.
What’s naive about it? There are lots of people who don’t have sex before marriage, which is what the pro-life position would actually advocate.
Right, I have in the past argued that it is actually not too much to ask for young people to not have sex in high school. I just didn't want to make this a post about that argument so I gave theoretical ground.
Well, who'd be doing the asking? In the current cultural milieu, parents are unable or unwilling to thot-patrol their daughters. If parents can't or won't, what chance does anyone else have without a coup-complete solution?
Some parents are even outright enablers. For example, I saw this comment on DSL a few weeks ago and I was like alan_grant_removing_sunglasses.gif. Buying your teenaged daughter a larger bed so some boy can more comfortably rail her is taking the daughter cuckoldry to new heights. What's next, buying a chair for a corner of her room so you can better cheer on your little girl?
I have to ask this straight at this point, would you breed with your own daughter if inbreeding and social backlash was not in the cards?
That's a pretty typical attempt at well-poisoning when any man prefers, or is suspected to prefer, a real or hypothetical daughter to be chaste. "Hur dur, you just want to fuck your own daughter." Note women don't receive such attempts at well-poisoning when they prefer a real or hypothetical son to be tall/athletic/etc.
It's a typical response to literally referring to a man's protectiveness of his daughter's chastity (a woman he is expected to not be fucking) with the same terminology as a man's protectiveness of his wife's faithfullness (a woman he is expected to be fucking). It's quite rich to glug the poison straight from the skull and bones vial in front of everyone and then claim you were poisoned.
I'm not attacking possessiveness or general "thot-patrolling" here, my question is about the specific choice of language. Do you want to make your daughter your wife, and if not, why do you imply someone fucking your daughter would make you the same thing as someone fucking your wife? You hide behind "but other people at other venues ask such questions for other reasons, and anyway those other people don't sufficiently interrogate women like that".
Note that women will absolutely receive accusations of wanting their son for themselves if they chase away all his girlfriends and marriage prospects, if I can help it.
Because, as should be obvious, I'm not equating the two; I just find it an amusing metaphor and hyperbole.
If the first one occurs, one would say he got cucked. It's not hard to see why "cucked" could then be extended as a metaphor for the second. Cuckold itself is a metaphor derived from the cuckoo bird.
Do you get similarly indignant and performatively bewildered when someone uses a term like "Republicuck" or "wagecuck", or says that he or she got "cucked" by a blue-shell in Mario Kart right before the finish line? A week and a half back I microhumorously referred to myself as "wagecucking" or "salarycucking" in describing myself working a fulltime job; if you saw it at the time, would you have thrown a challenge flag to grandstand and "interrogate" me as to why I'd compare my employment status to my wife getting plowed by another man? If you did see it at the time, why didn't you?
Or maybe I just didn't feel like indulging your snide attempt at well-poisoning beyond the response I gave. Bad practice to reward bad behavior.
I'm aware of the concept of edgy jokes. I'm also aware of the concept of masking real feelings with jokes, usually detected by the joke being particularly repetitive and adjacent to plainly stated opinions.
There are only trace amounts of Freudian potential in "wagecucking". It's really hard to imagine someone beating a wagecucking meme to death because he really feels sexually dominated by capitalism. I have tried just now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link