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 -
Right just lemme take a note here.
Say you are looking forward to women being forced into destitution: a-okay to say.
Quote historical real actual content of the same kind: how dare you be sarcastic!
Interesting view of life you got there, mod.
If you are making a serious point and not just sarcastically mocking women, yes. People have in fact been modded in the past when their incel-posting was basically just "bitches be crazy." On the other hand, people have been allowed to post all sorts of outside-the-Overton-window stuff without being modded if they are able to do so while following our discourse norms.
You know this. You know what the Motte is all about. You are not some naïf wandering in here and shocked to discover we have Holocaust deniers and white nationalists and yes, unironic anti-female emancipationists. Why do you pretend you don't understand how things work here?
You know I have modded people for being obnoxious and sarcastic while venting their spleen about how much contempt they hold women in. You've also seen me just today arguing with the incel-posters, as a non-mod, so your "interesting view of life" crack is petty and disingenuous. What view of life is it you are accusing me of holding, exactly? What exactly are you pleading for? A rule that people aren't allow to say hurtful things about women (but everyone else is fair game)?
Look up at the top of the page. There's a rule that's been there forever:
Now, if you want to argue that we don't always mod every single instance of sarcasm or mockery, and indeed that I have a sarcastic bone or two in my body, you're not wrong! But your post was just a long screed of pure unfiltered sarcasm and mockery. If you had really wanted to make that same point seriously, you could have. "Hey, look, your ideas are not new and they look pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms, don't they?" That would have been fine. But no, you were clearly upset at all the he-man woman-haters going on about how women and their ladybrains don't belong in the workforce, and so you worked up this (admittedly effortful, and even kind of funny) little polemic to mock them with.
And my warning was barely a slap on the wrist! A "okay, hah hah, now please don't do this." But like all the humorless scolds who think everything is funny when they do it and nothing is funny when it's done to them, here you are once more taking grave offense like I personally singled you out with my biased woman-hating agenda. You could take the rap and move on, but no, you obviously wanted more attention, so here it is. That's my explanation of why you got modded while the people posting things that outraged you did not. That's my "view of life." Happy to straighten that out for you.
You seem to be very thin-skinned about this, as if I did think you have a he-man woman-hater persona going on. Maybe you should work on that? I didn't think you had any particular dog in this fight, other than not getting the point I was making (which was 'look, your ideas seem pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms'), but you leaped immediately to "he-man woman-hater". You do seem to think I am going for you in particular, rather than the general attitude on here around "it's all the fault of women for not having babies the second they reach the age of sexual consent".
Hmmm. Were you being sarcastic there? Don't make me tap the sign:
Dr. Smith of 1905 was quoting the science of his day about the dangers of uppity women. We know better in regards to science today, so we think his views are quaint and absurd (women go crazy when pregnant if they're too smart?)
But there are plenty of guys trotting out just as quaint and absurd evo-psych twaddle about the nature of women on here. I'm not going to get into a screaming match if I can help it, but I am also not going to sit and take it like a lady. So yes, I'll mock that which is mockable because it is not worth engaging with on any other level than "this is risible".
More options
Context Copy link
Do I? I'm starting to wonder. Was that remark about hoping for an economic crash so women (and it wasn't specifying any particular set of women, rather all women which would include the likes of me) will be forced to choose between destitution (yes, that was the exact word) or 'making concessions to good men' - was that remark 'ha ha only joking', in which case it too should have earned the sarcasm penalty, or was it meant in all seriousness?
Because we've lived the days of "sex for meat" and that's the damn reason feminism came into being in the first place. Hoping to exploit the misery of others is not what I thought The Motte was about. How about if someone cheered on the idea of AI putting all the guys on here out of work, so that they will have to bend the knee to employers and scrabble for former white collar jobs with the cheap imported labour, which drives down salaries and workplace conidiations? Suppose I reacted to someone talking about their fears for their late career with "serves you right, you had it too good all along, now you will have to agree with whatever an employer demands of you if you want any kind of job"?
I don't think that wishing misfortune on men would go down well here. I don't want men to suffer. But yes, if we are turning into "women are all bitches and should be literally at the foot of a man, any man, and don't dare refuse sex at all for any reason, don't dare have opinions and views of their own, don't dare be anything but the fantasy Stepford wife", then I really don't know what it is all about.
You guys surely have mothers. Are you really going to say to them "Mom, you shouldn't have gone past high school and you should be glad Dad isn't fucking a 20 year old on the side because you need to appreciate that a man is willing to lead and rule you, you useless eater"?
If someone did that, then I think that instead of getting pissed inarticulately, the people would point out that according to all trends, AI is going to replace cheap imported labor in white collar jobs before it replaces the productive white mottizen, and at any rate there's going to be blue collar work left.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The thing is, I'm getting rapped over the knuckles for being sarcastic.
Okay, yes, sarcasm there a-plenty.
However, it was "laughing to keep from crying". I preferred to react with mockery of a similar viewpoint from the past, rather than engage in serious angry cursing of the person who wished for the misfortune of others.
Since it seems satire is out but rancour is fine, shrugging at nonsense will get a scolding but hoping for a disaster is neutral, then let me say: I don't hope, wish or dream of a disaster that will befall those I disagree with or my ideological enemies, not even those I come close to having contempt for. I can wish bad things, but I know wishing for bad things is wrong and I should not do it. It's the immediate gut reaction of reading an appalling story in the news and wishing the abominable bitch gets tortured to death. (As for the spineless fuckstick dad who apparently was fine with her beating the shit out of the kid so long as she opened her legs for him on a regular basis, tell me again about strong male-led households, please!)
Not a good state of mind for the individual, not a good state of mind for society.
So I react with ridicule of an old piece of nonsense rather than screaming anger where I detonate in a fireball not seen since the Tunguska Incident (please forgive me, it's the phosphates, you know! Medical science has proven it!)
But since, as I said, the preference is for disaster hoping, then shentlemens: may you all experience the likes of that Pap test conducted by a male consultant gynaecologist which was the second and last time I had it done. The last, since I would bloody well prefer to run the risk of cervical cancer than go through that experience again. To add insult to injury, the guy wasn't even able to collect a proper sample so no results could be obtained, as the letter I got back from the testing lab informed me.
Hoping for bad things to happen to those you disagree with is fine and will not get me into trouble, just so long as I avoid sarcasm, see Amadan's mod decision. So if I really want bad things to happen to the men on here, expressing that wish is not going to evoke any pushback. But if I indulge in hyperbolic scoffing where the target is beyond any ill-wish of mine, that is bad and results in a scolding.
Nice to have that clear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's kind of a huge point of this place. We can discuss things that are forbidden elsewhere as long as we do so with clarity. Avoiding sarcasm is literally in the rules. I may break that rule but I'm not surprised if I get modded for it.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with the mod. I think the main issue is that you're not putting forth any arguments here. You are not explaining why this speaker is wrong and women being educated is correct. You are not explaining the parallels between this speaker and the modern people you disagree with. You're quoting things someone else said and then providing a mocking tl;dr after each paragraph. And it's not even about the modern people you disagree with here.
If you honestly and sincerely believed that women should not be educated and provided a detailed and good-faith argument towards that, it would be okay. If you honestly and sincerely believed that women should be educated and provided a detailed and good-faith debunking of someone relevant to today, that would be okay. If you honestly and sincerely believe that women should not be forced into destitution and want to argue that point straightforwardly, then that's okay. If you want to throw a sarcastic quip or two in the midst of your genuine argument that's probably fine though not encouraged.
But you don't actually have an argument here. More than half the post is quotes and not even your own words, which is also discouraged. You're just mocking people from a hundred years ago and assuming the audience already agrees with you that they are bad and also that the modern people are just as bad.
Why is everyone calling me a mod? I'm not a moderator of this website nor a member of a midcentury British youth subculture!
Some people strive for modship. Others have it thrust upon them, and find to their surprise that they wear it well.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh huh, it looks like your post is right below the mod's post, and /u/HereAndGone accidentally clicked reply to yours instead of the mod's without noticing (I didn't notice either, since it seems like he's meant to reply to the mod from his comment).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Dear sir, if you genuinely believe women end up in lunatic asylums after getting pregnant because their over-developed brains have leeched the phosphates from their systems, I look forward to your opinions on reducing the superfluity of yellow bile in the choleric.
I don't genuinely believe that. Which is why I didn't make an argument in favor of it. I think you're missing the point here. The problem is not that we disagree with you on the object level about women's rights, the issue is that we disagree with your style of argument (or lack thereof).
More options
Context Copy link
The literally biochemical explanation may not be technically true but the general idea seems accurate and is backed up by plenty of Science™️
Well science has adduced that women do experience basic emotions more strongly than men do. My own observation here is that some vocal individuals evidently have a lot of hangups with women even if I think they’re right on some things. But the most misogynistic people I’ve ever met in my entire life have been other women. Especially when you get them arguing on behalf of the men close to them; especially their sons. But women get shit on all the time for things they’re not allowed to say but men will happily say on their own behalf. Hypocritical if you ask me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you considered the health benefits of being leeched? I can assure you that Breaker’s House of Leeches sells only the finest leeches to temper your humours.
Buy one, get one, no returns.
My blood was tested recently and there was no problem, but I always keep the benefit of leeches in mind. Cutting for the stone may be the next port of call, can you recommend a good barber-surgeon?
More options
Context Copy link
People always use this as a smackdown of antiquated and barbaric views on medicine but.....leeches did sometimes help. There are medical problems with some people having too high blood iron, which bloodletting does legitimately treat. Modern doctors will draw blood using needles and fancy modern equipment that didn't used to exist, and they actually know the underlying causes and how to properly diagnose these conditions rather than guessing. But ancient doctors had to guess and notice patterns to cure anything at all.
Some conditions get better if you lose blood -> put a leech on people whose symptoms seem similar to those ones and hope it works
is not the most profound logical chain, but it's not the kind of insane quackery that people treat it as whenever they talk about doctors and leeches.
No argument there, the ancients always impress me.
I don’t think I’ve ever really brought it up here, but one of the things about past humans up until maybe the 1930s or so, is that they had nothing but time with which to notice patterns.
Most entertainment activities and almost all of the work ones involved interacting with other humans on a constant basis. Most of them required you to go outside to do them, and mingle amongst other humans. Even if they don’t require it, like spinning, spinning by yourself is extremely boring and it’s more fun to go outside and talk to other people. They had a lot of time to notice patterns and behavioral trends in their fellow humans.
And once we got around to the Greeks, they started writing down their notes for us.
The fact that they had so much time just spent hanging around each other inclines me to trust their observations of human nature very highly.
I would caveat that by noting that people are prone to biases, and prior to the scientific method this was especially rampant. So a lot of this is overgeneralized. Going back to the leech example: while some cases of leech use were appropriate, a lot were just applied pointlessly to unrelated conditions. If you define man as a "featherless biped", logically a cripple who's lost a leg is no longer a man, while a plucked chicken is.
I would generally trust ancient wisdom that includes caveats like "most" or "usually", I would not trust them if they try to say "all" or "always".
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