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 is a great example of how to hold a constructive discussion, but it's almost an exception that proves the rule about Aella. She entertained a discussion with a female who holds almost diametrically opposed ideals and thus isn't a direct competitor with Aella for attention.
I think information that would cause me to revert to an overall positive position on Aella (and don't get me wrong, I'm kind of glad she exists) is if I found out she anonymously gave away large sums of money to pro-sex worker causes or was actively helping lonely men find compatible mates rather than just taking their money and asking them to respond to her surveys.
It's not clear to me that she has any goals in mind other than just stirring the pot and making money. I guess she did try to help promote a dating app a few years back.
I've said it elsewhere, in the current environment of intrasexual competition, Aella is basically an Apex Predator. And she will probably remain so into her 40's or beyond, and she's well aware of her genetic gifts and happy to exploit them.
So I just find it telling that she knows full well the impact her own presence has on the discourse, and while she ostensibly believes she's a net positive overall, she won't make seemingly small changes to her behavior in response to any criticism.
I find it hard to believe that constantly thirst-trapping lonely men (most of whom, I think, are absolutely NOT in the rationalist sphere) is a pro-social activity, and it would not be hard for her to just... not do that.
Being clear, literally none of this invalidates anything she has to say, or her research, nor does it mean all her critics are right.
I think my opinion started turning after observing the interaction where she claimed that she'd rather die alone than marry a guy who required she shut down her Onlyfans. And it's hard for me to take that as anything other than "I don't think it is reasonable to ask me to stop receiving money from lonely, horny guys who find me sexually attractive in exchange for a serious, committed relationship from a male that I find attractive."
Which, okay. But a strange hill to literally die on which indicates to me either this whole claim to want help looking for a husband isn't actually in good faith or she's talked herself into quite an intractable position, and will end up unhappy if she can't find a way out. And if she doesn't have a good-faith desire to locate a husband and settle down, then she's basically declaring her intent to keep teasing horny single men (possibly inhibiting their ability to find a partner of their own) indefinitely.
More options
Context Copy link