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 -
But more because it marks you as someone who doesn't want to compete/isn't concerned about taking shortcuts; you're willingly accepting somewhat damaged goods rather than the more-desirable 15 year old peers you "should" be trying to date instead.
Sex you get for free is worthless as a status symbol, just marks you as a dumpster-diver (and marks [the sexual value of] the woman in the relationship as so undesirable she couldn't even give sex away, or merely perverted at best). This is the spear counterpart to the "she isn't yet wise enough to be able to/to know to extract maximum resources from men" argument (usually stated as "not mature enough", eliding the truth that the only maturity that matters in women is physical), by the way.
This matters much less if the teacher's sufficiently hot or young, of course, but of course it would; that's not meaningfully distinct from a successful seduction on the man's part, as the status of having secured that sex is actually significant.
Is sex inherently harmful, or is it not? (This is rhetorical- everyone already knows their own private answer to this; that's why the compromise between 'yes' and 'no' yielded an age of consent, and to a point why that initial compromise progressed/regressed into the modern understanding of a gender of consent.)
More options
Context Copy link