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 -
There's a fun dramatic little scissor statement happening in the rationalist / post rationalist corner of twitter at the moment. Started by @_brentbaum talking about his girlfriend's high agency:
I, and many others, chimed in saying hey wait a second... this is actually kind of concerning! Some of the negative responses:
and my personal favorite:
As I said though, this is apparently a scissor statement because a ton of people also had the OPPOSITE reaction. Some examples:
etc etc.
Now the reason I find this fascinating is that it's one of the clearest breakdowns between consequentialists and virtue ethicists I've yet seen in the wild. Most people defending the girl of 'scarfgate' are basically just saying "what's the harm? nobody ever goes back for those scarfs. besides they're like $20 most of the time anyway."
Unfortunately a lot of folks get drawn into this argument, and start saying things like well, what if somebody comes back for it later and it's gone? Or what if someone's grandma knitted them that scarf?
To me, going down the consequentialist route is doomed to fail. You can justify all sorts of horrible things in the name of consequentialist morality. (Same with deontology, to be fair.) My take is that this is wrong because she directly lied to someone's face, and then proceeded to steal someone else's property. The fact that most people think it's cute and quirky is probably down to a sort of Women are Wonderful effect, imo, and then they use consequentialism to defend their default programming that women can't be bad.
Either way, curious what the Motte thinks? Is scarfgate just salty sour pusses hating on a highly agentic women? Or are there deeper issues here?
Someone who'll cheat with you will also cheat on you.
Someone who'll steal for you will also steal from you.
The second sentence doesn't strictly follow the first. Stealing from an out-group (e.g. the faceless forgetful hotel patron) is not an indication they'll do the same to an in-group. On the other hand, cheating is necessarily harming an in-group person (the romantic partner), and as the current romantic partner you should be worried.
Think of the "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I, my brother, and my cousin against the world" proverb.
I have to disagree. "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much." She has demonstrated that she has no problem taking advantage of third parties, so if a situation arises where it benefits her to take things from him, why should I believe she will hesitate to do so out of outmoded scruples about trust and intimacy?
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's presumptuous to assume that a girl considers you part of her in-group just because she agreed to go on a second date with you.
My girlfriend is currently trying to persuade a close friend of hers (I'll call her D) to cut ties with one of her friends (A). I disliked A literally from the moment I met her, as not only do I find her vapid and annoying, she also seems like a legitimately shitty person. (It was a relief to find out that my girlfriend dislikes A just as much as I do). A openly announced that she goes on dates with guys from Tinder, goes back to their houses, then steals shit before leaving. Of course D laughed it off like "oh yeah, she's just being a girlboss" and insisted that she'd never steal from one of her friends. Mais quelle surprise when A starts borrowing clothes and other items from D and never returns them (or loses them and doesn't offer to replace them); or when D invited A to stay in D's parents' house, and various expensive items mysteriously went missing while she was staying there. D's parents now despise A, understandably enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But this is cheating for you, which is a little different. I can totally see the appeal of a Bonnie & Clyde romantic partnership where you places your mutual interest above other moral concerns. “Felt cute, might violate the Geneva convention later.”
I know this is going far afield based on one instance, but do we know that the girlfriend feels the same way about OP as he does about her? She might be in a relationship with him because it's currently beneficial for her but she is not in love with him or deeply attached, and would dump him if a better opportunity came along. And possibly empty out his bank account on the way out the door, to boot (well after all she needs to be recompensed for all the time she wasted on him).
Someone who demonstrates on a
firstsecond date that they have no problems lying and stealing is not someone indicating long-term trustworthiness.More options
Context Copy link
I believe Jimmy from South Park had a relevant angle on this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link