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 -
This sounds pretty good: women are more caring than men, and all they're doing here is caring.
However, and this is related to the 4chan poster who claims this is pseudopregnancy, is that these things are advocated for in a way that doesn't strike me as coming from a place of compassion. It looks a lot more like hysteria. When I see these ladies get on the mic they are always speaking in terms of how much they hate the patriarchy (i.e. their own men), not how great Haitians are. Let's also remember that these are the same women who have done their best to eradicate any trace of all-male space on at university because masculinity is toxic and men are rapers. They say that even one woman assaulted on campus is too many, while offering complete foreigners a huge amount of leeway on the same topic. It makes sense: they're on the side of the foreigners. But why?
To feel something besides alone?
'compassion' and 'hysteria' of sorts can totally coexist though. Like, let's say you saw a brutalizing a , or your enemy saw a brutalizing a - they'd be both motivated by 'helping the innocent person not be harmed' but also hysteric about it.
More options
Context Copy link
The "hysterical" component is simply the zeal that accompanies a conviction in one's own righteousness and the evil of one's enemies. Radfems screeching about the patriarchy are not much different than Puritans screeching about witches. MAGAs and wokes suffer from the same malady, however much you want to ascribe it to some particular component of female psychology.
That would be the uncharitable projection I was alluding to. I know Dread Jim and Vox Day and their ilk write a lot about how deep down, women are turned on by the idea of being raped by alpha males, but consider the possibility that when women "care" they are actually caring (however misguided you think they are) and not just following some opaque hypergamous programming subroutine.
Disagree. One prefers
hostileforeigners to their own, both want to make it illegal for the other to be in power. Not symmetric.Here's where it's weird. I wrote in another comment that women making excuses for rapey immigrants is in heavy contrast to the decidedly less rapey white men they've given no quarter at university for the last several decades. What gives besides friend and enemy distinction?
The simplest answer is that they are wrong about relative prevalence of rape.
Or that you are. From NIJ
If a college woman doesn't know or interact with any illegal immigrants, then she is exceedingly unlikely to be raped by one. Even taking your assumption that those men are more likely to rape, the base rate of interaction is so low as to make it practically irrelevant. [Rainn tells us](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence#:~:text=Male%20college%2Daged%20students%20(18,of%20rape%20or%20sexual%20assault.&text=Female%20college%2Daged%20students%20(18,of%20rape%20or%20sexual%20assault.) that college women are less likely to be raped than similarly aged women who aren't in college. Those women who aren't in college, in turn, are probably exceedingly unlikely to be raped by a college student.
So this is closer to a class issue than a race or a gender issue, even if we accept your framing.
Sure, that’s possible too- I wasn’t trying to address the issue of who’s doing the raping. Just pointing out that the possible solutions to ‘feminists are really attached to importing rapists’ include ‘they believe what they say they believe, including incorrect statistics about the prevalence of rape’, and that this is a more likely explanation than ‘they all want to get raped’.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure if you're being insincere or if you just have a very broken theory of mind for your outgroup. It's not complicated; I'll say it again. They actually believe what they say they believe. They do not believe immigrants are "rapey"; they believe immigrants are oppressed marginalized refugees. They actually believe white men at their university are privileged and rapey. It's not some secret code you have to crack to figure out why they treat one differently than the other: they told you. Your interpretation ("You know immigrants are more likely to rape you than your white classmates, right?") might or might not be correct, but that is not their interpretation. They aren't just pretending not to understand and hiding their motives: they believe different things.
Then the question is why do they choose to believe things that aren't true and are trivially easy to disprove.
No, the question, or rather the offer is: then disprove them. "My enemies are wrong and believe untruths" is what everyone believes and carries no information.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed, but my OP focused on a subgroup:
Married women from the same demographic, especially with kids, believe these things to a much lesser degree. Do you think that being single makes a woman more likely to buy into this stuff, and why might that be?
From election polling, and - 'married men: 39% D, married women: 42% D, nonmarried men: 45% D, nonmarried women: 68% D'. (I'd argue a lot of that is just women being more influenced by social ideas, and 'progressive ideas' are the background and are winning, so younger women adopt those)
Your explanation seems wrong though
I'm not married to my explanation, but "women more easily convinced" doesn't seem right. Why aren't they convinced by strong borders? Pretty good arguments for that.
I mean more influenced by ideas on the basis of other people holding them, as opposed to 'trying really hard to figure it out oneself'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're asking why college students are more radical than older, married people with children, and yet somehow making it a question about women.
To be fair, the polling (sibling comment) shows a much stronger difference in party voted for than married vs unmarried women (26% absolute) than married vs unmarried men (6% absolute), although op's explanation still seems wrong
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Near group/far group
What is the analogous far group for red?
Apparently women.
You seem quite confident that women feel the exact same fear or distaste as you, but channel it into completely different policy. This might have something to do with taking gender studies on 4chan.
Consider the the possibility that women frame the issue differently than you. They are not afraid or threatened, and think of sympathetic migrants and unjust sentencing rather than drug trafficking or recidivism.
Red uses women against blue?
No, in @Westerly’s explanation, the difference between near and far groups is whether one actually has an accurate model of them.
My B, did not interpret that correctly
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
People, and especially women, are good at self-deception.
To that end, we can see that they most likely really do believe that they believe all of the things amadan says they do as reasons for their actions.
At the same time, we can also acknowledge that there's probably something to your guess here.
“Women want to be raped rather than be alone” is a spicy enough take to demand some fucking strong evidence. I’ll settle for literally any, though.
Women love rape. There’s nothing that gets a woman’s motor going like forcibly holding them down and having your way with them. Degrade her verbally, pull her hair, smack her ass, choke her.
If you’d spent much time with women you’d know this.
Boring troll is boring. Banned for a week, probably permaban next time.
ETA: Threw flaming shitfit in DMs. Permabanned.
More options
Context Copy link
https://twitter.com/extradeadjcb/status/1443219177733607432
https://extradeadjcb.substack.com/p/10-you-can-save-her
Not exactly what you said, but closer than the other guy
This gender dynamic stuff is really difficult (and cringe) to discuss properly because it's a game where talking about the rules is an instant loss.
So while your statement is correct for a certain type of person, talking about it is disqualifying because now there's a chance you're just miming something that's support to be natural. Or you're not that type of person at all, in which case it's revolting for you to be thinking about this at all.
You can talk about it here! You just need to be very precise, write lots of long sentences, etc. See ilforte's posts about jews - lots of detail, context, arguments, etc.
I think the implication is that would still count as an instant loss--from the perspective of a woman reading it. Talking about the game is unsexy.
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
I observe that their support for immigration is related more to hating their own men than it is loving these other men, which really changes the whole thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link