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 -
Never have I seen the 80/20 rule stated that way in the context of the mating market anywhere. What I can surely state is that the rule was originally popularized (in the online space, that is) on Manosphere sites sometime around 2008 or 2009 (definitely not 2015). I can’t cite sources because those sites disappeared a long time ago due to various reasons (doxxing etc.). It’s a simple interpretation of the Pareto effect (i.e. that 80% of the consequences/results come from 20% of the causes/effort) applied to the mating market, and was usually stated as “20% of the men attract 80% of the women” or “20% of all men have 80% of all the sex” etc. I’m aware that those statements are rather different but that doesn’t matter because all of them assume the same Pareto effect. (Some detractors even came up with the argument that what’s actually happening is that 20% of all men engage in 80% of all sex acts with 20% of all women, which’d still be an example of the Pareto effect/distribution). Again, the fundamental intent behind the whole argument is to differentiate the current society of unrestrained female hypergamy from the bygone society of enforced monogamy, because a lot of people were unaware of this distinction, especially back then.
More options
Context Copy link