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 -
Ok I will rephrase. Would you be able to live a happy life having had rights and then having them taken away from you? Could you go from person to non-person?
Sure, happiness is a state of mind, not a state of being. Men in POW camps in war have found tremendous happiness before, to give one example of many. And I am willing to bet that a significant chunk of women in Afghanistan are happier with the Taliban back than they were under US occupation, especially the more devoutly religious muslim women.
I think you would very definitively lose that bet. Fig 4A has the cross tab for women.
I never claimed all or even a majority might like it, just a significant chunk. And that chart is only overall life satisfaction, with the male drop being almost as big as the female.
Indeed, the men are immiserated as well.
Still, it's not true that a chunk of women are significant happier, otherwise they would have raised that line somewhat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a pretty annoying leftist framing of "rights". Are children not people? Are foreigners living within another country not people? Are the mentally disabled and elderly not people?
Of course. Here, the example of expats above is helpful. And indeed, in practice I did experience losing freedom of speech when I was a teenager, having learned things and come to opinions that are de facto illegal in my country. The Boomers lost freedom of association in the 1960s and they managed well enough. And voting? Please. Voting is a joke. The right to vote is the right to be ruled by whoever controls the media.
Do you think not being able to say nigger or keep black people out of your dad's car dealership is equivalent to being a woman in the 1890s in terms of rights lost? I am going to be honest, I really don't think that you do.
The principal difference between the 1890s woman and the 21st century man is that the 1890s woman was legally defenseless against abuse from her husband, while the more fortunate 21st century man is merely legally defenseless against career criminals, mentally ill violent strangers on public transportation, police officers, his boss, every woman who works in his HR department, his wife, and rioters who have the correct politics.
Would you rather have a husband who could legally beat and rape you or a bad boss for a job that you can quit?
The more fortunate man, who the average mottezan overwhelmingly is statistically, deals with maybe 2 of these on average if they are unlucky. This is claiming trans so you can be a disadvantaged group in an argument you're doing woke lib shit right now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why not? Speech is fundamental for political coordination under any system, but especially in a democracy. You can sneer and call it "not being able to say nigger", but you know it's not limited to it, and that the point is disenfranchisement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link