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 -
Well, not quite. Good (and Babbit) crossed a line.
That line, established through human instinct, is that a woman only has the "protection from male violence" privileges until that woman poses a legitimate existential threat to a man. Once that happens, her Wonderfulness is forfeit, and she is as expendable as any man.
This is why the stereotype of most women having a tantrum is throwing breakable objects. It's play-fighting. If she grabbed a knife or gun to assault the man (unarmed strikes are play-fighting as men are more powerful than women), was actively in the process of hitting him with the car, or is punching through a window at the head of an angry mob... then all bets are off.
This is why, I believe, that a good chunk of the way this was treated (and you can see it on this forum once the "was she a threat?" question was firmly established to be "yes") became "well, did she think she was play-fighting?", and the answer being a plausible "yes, because she was constantly told by her favorite media apparatus these people weren't serious" seems to engender (heh) the most sympathy.
In other words, the resulting violence (from the biological male defending against the hostile woman) is, from a sociobiological perspective, functionally man-on-man (which is Part of the Plan so nobody cares). The only people who don't understand that are either paid a salary not to, or are weirdos who actually think men and women are equal (perhaps they lack the above instinct altogether).
I don’t think him shooting improved his odds of surviving the shooting. So the shooting did nothing in this situation to improve ICE safety but it does improve future safety by making agitators aware they will shoot.
That's immaterial to the point on which I was critiquing/elaborating, which was your "you can just shoot lesbian woke agitators and nobody cares".
Yes, I agree that an event that makes women acutely aware that running from/over the cops does not qualify as play-fighting in the eyes of society at large will discourage women from trying this in the future.
(It's not going to discourage men, but they have an instinctual awareness they aren't Privileged, and as such are more likely to know when they're caught. Not that this would still be a story was Good a man, but anyway.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link