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 -
Two leftist policies where I can understand the power dynamics but not the attitude: open borders for military-aged third-world men, relaxed (or none at all) prosecution on criminals, especially military-aged minorities who commit brazen acts of murder/assault/robbery.
As is always the case, these policies exist because a lot of parties benefit. Open borders is supported by capital, homeowners (keeps housing prices pumping), and leftists who gain the patronage of the newcomers. Criminals also help various parties. They drive out right-wingers (i.e. families). They use a huge amount of services that employ leftists. Like immigrants they become patrons to the left, to some degree.
I can see why these things are allowed to continue, but the above analysis is missing the source of intense passion that these issues receive. I don't think Amazon ever pushed for open borders, they just didn't complain end enjoyed the cheap labour. Homeowners don't go to open borders rallies because they want another point of appreciation. Chesa Boudin wants prisoners released because it's strategic. On these two issues specifically, there is only one source of intense passion: single, college-educated women.
This is confusing. Women are more risk-averse and place a higher value on safety, but at the same time they are advocating for violent criminals and random foreigners. There is also a strong element of hatred towards their own countrymen present in this, which makes sense given the policy but does not make sense given that they're ladies. It's similar to the pit bull owner thing. What's up with this? I've seen the meme around pseudopregnancy before and it fits OK, but it's not clear why criminals and foreigners would be the subject of this affection over anything else.
Maybe if a women feel rejected by or reject their own tribe themselves, they attempt to undermine it in the hopes of getting conquered by a different tribe? That seems overly complicated though, the answer to this should feel simple because it's emotional. Help me out here.
None of the leftist women I know are sleeping with 5 foot 2 Nicaraguan day laborers so I'm skeptical of this theory.
And rich leftist women bring in the army when the Guatemalans are on their front lawn to intern them on a military base while arguing that Texas should have open borders.
The poor democrat women in south Texas voted far more Republican than usual on the strength of… sending in the army to try to seal the border and declaring migration to be an invasion.
Neither of these reactions indicate secretly wanting to get raped by brown people. I mean it’s possible, but honestly ‘we hate Texas’ is a more plausible motive for the former’s insistence on the border being open than that. Not that that’s saying much.
In the realm of the sexual, I think it is very much possible to both want something and not want it at the same time, as little as that makes sense.
In the online realm, for example, I have observed both many dedicated fans of BLACKED fetishism admitting themselves to actually be right-wing, even White nationalists and adjacent, and many dedicated fans of the opposing BLEACHED fetish (dedicated to sexualizing (usually right-wing) White men, often with more explicit elements like being raped by Proud Boys, Nazis, Republicans, etc. for being too woke or feminist or whatever, politically-oriented degradation) admitting to being left-wing, normally opposed to "White privilege", etc.
Similarly, on forums dedicated to discussing rape it isn't uncommon to find rape victims declare that they ended up being turned on by how unattractive their rapist was (that is, I suppose the humiliating element of being forcefully subjugated by someone you would never voluntarily offer yourself to) and subsequently developing a somewhat paradoxical "fetish" for men they find unattractive, or at least the thought of being raped by them.
(But it seems to me that the real perplexing element is that their bizarre "attractiveness" is contingent on their perceived willingness to rape: The women still will still not offer themselves to these newly attractive-in-their-unattractiveness men voluntarily in the manner that they would to purely attractive men; they might develop a habit of attempting to tease them and entice them into rape for the thrill of it, but these men must still must take the bait and choose to rape to be sexually desirable and have a chance of sexual conquest with these women.)
The erotic element of the human mind can be a bizarre thing, perhaps particularly in an age of widespread exposure to any kind of pornography.
Interesting post. It reminds me of the concept of reaction formation.
Yeah that seems to be about it.
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