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 disagree. I regularly work out at the gym and see just how attractive a plain woman can be if (1) she is in her early 20s; and (2) she is in great shape. Such a woman would have no problem getting a marriage proposal from some lonely but successful tech bro.
I doubt this. She can probably get a date, yes, but a lonely but successful techbro is not going to marry his girlfriend on double quick time.
I disagree, there are a lot of lonely guys out there who have money but zero success with women.
What do you make of the experiment I proposed a few posts over:
She'd get a lot of interest. How much of it would be serious is a different problem, and one that is impossible for even the men messaging her to assess neutrally.
Besides the basic problem of a man stringing her along, one of the great tragedies of human life is that your hypothetical desperate tech bro is lonely and has zero success with women, but the moment this girl starts dating him he will not be lonely and he will not have had zero success with women.
Human relationships are so difficult because the deal is changing in real time as it is being executed. We say to the hot girl, go date the lonely techbro niceguy, he'll worship you because he can't get anyone else. But sometimes, by showing interest in the lonely tech bro niceguy, the hot girl improves his status so much, that he isn't lonely and he isn't a niceguy anymore, and he takes his new found confidence on the road.
She could make it clear that there will be no physical intimacy of any nature whatsoever until there's a ring on her finger. Agreed?
Men on online dating websites: notorious for respecting women's stated boundaries, infamous for their Kantian commitment to telling the truth, legendary for their long term commitment.
I mean if you want to work on the experiment together, I'll agree to your rules and see what happens. But I don't really think it's the glidepath to marriage to just show up online and say I WANT A HUSBAND.
The glidepath to marriage remains church.
So it sounds like you are saying that in our experiment, the woman will receive a lot of interest but substantially all of it will be from men who ultimately won't offer the marriage proposal the woman is clearly insisting on before offering any kind of physical intimacy whatsoever.
Is that right?
I don't feel like investing the time but in any event, it doesn't seem like it would resolve anything. If the hypothetical woman received 20 or 30 lengthy, seemingly heartfelt messages from serious suitors of financial means, you would conclude that pretty much all the men were either lying or would flake at some point before the altar.
You smuggle in "serious" when there is no way to learn that they are serious until they are, in fact, at the altar.
That's not necessarily true. If the suitor invests a lot of time in the relationship without receiving any physical gratification, it's a pretty good indication that the person is serious.
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