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 -
The most notable thing about him when the shock value wears off is the depth and breadth of his hatred. The man has been railing nonstop about how women should be reduced to sexual chattel and raped by their husbands, along with how all non-white people in the west should be slaughtered for the better part of 30 years now. He was, when I was much younger, a pretty key part in me deciding who my ideological enemies would be though so I guess there is that.
Eh. There's a reactionary idiom that is the reverse of political language everywhere else. Where most people use euphemisms ("I'm pro-life"), and a stalwart minority of fair-minded folks speak prosaically ("I'm anti-abortion"), reactionaries actively and intentionally use dysphemisms ("I'm pro-Men-Controlling-Women's-Bodies"). They take speaking blunt and coarse to its extreme, to the point of not even being accurate.
Having read a few reactionaries a lot, I am 100% confident they don't literally mean what they say. Why are they speaking like this then? I think this strange affectation is (a) a reflexive emotional rebellion of what they call 'the longhouse', which gags everyone's language and thinking in daily life, (b) a gatekeeping mechanism to keep out "containment conservatives" in the brand of James Lindsay, who operate the modern political ratchet by policing discourse to their right.
Yes, Dread Jim clearly believes in returning race and gender norms waaaaaaay back. Leftists would certainly describe the world of the late 1800s as "reducing women to sexual chattel" and "genociding browns", which is why he delights in calling his politics that. But, really, do you actually think, prosaically, that's what 1890 was like?
You can only say "I want to reduce people to chattel I can rape at will and kill other people" for so many decades nonstop before I believe you. I am fairly certain he is serious in his political aims and objectives I have no reason to give him any charity at all as he has never given any other group any at all.
Would you willingly live with the rights of an 1890s woman?
Sure. Obviously in this scenario I'm transformed fully into a woman (mentally and physically, with no one including myself remembering my being a man), and all other women would have to have the same rights.
I think the sexual revolution was terrible for society. It was also pretty bad for women themselves.
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?
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
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