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 -
I probably end up thinking more like you on this, but to try and steelman BahRamYou's point, you have to take into account what was the likely mindset the story was written with. It's from the #MeToo era, written by a lesbian writer, in The New Yorker, and it depicts a man as a villain, in a way that even seems to go against most of the story itself. What are the chances that Roupenian thought: "that's what men are truly like, they're children who become nasty and wound you when you don't want to have (more) sex with them"? I think it's quite possible. It's also possible she didn't think so and just wrote the story that wanted to write itself using random details of a relationship she heard before, and despite harbouring no ill will towards men in general decided right at the end to turn the guy into a total asshole. Maybe she thought it would help the story get picked up, or maybe she just made a bad writing decision, or maybe I'm wrong and in decades we'll be looking back at this story and decide she made the best literary choice by doing this heel-turn. We'll likely never know because it's not quite as fashionable to admit having this kind of prejudice against men now as it was when the story was written. But it's almost impossible for me to think that it's not the reason The New Yorker picked it up. If prejudice against men was intended, it does make the revelation that it's based on a story where the man wasn't at all like that seem intellectually dishonest. Prejudice can be understood and forgiven if it's driven by experience or ignorance, but it's much harder to explain and forgive if the person did actually know better.
More options
Context Copy link