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 -
Feminism and communism are the same ideology: the satanic destruction of natural hierarchy by those who imagine they can fill the shoes of their natural superiors. Children insisting upon receiving the full rights and privileges of adults would be a congruent third leg but at least so far almost nobody seems dumb enough to push for that. Then again it wasn't so long ago that the same would have been said of women. Or vagrants; or indigenes.
Communism is implicitly feminist; feminism is implicitly communist. These are branches, not separate trees.
Didn't I just see Kamala argue for lowering the voting age? Like, yesterday?
Kamala and Stalin want pretty different societies. So I'd say that's enough to mark their ideologies as different. Actual commies even western ones hate Kamala and don't see her as a fellow travelers. She certainly doesn't want to abolish capitalism.
Do you consider actual existing communism, not theoretical communism on the Berkeley campus, to be a destruction of natural hierarchy? Because I have a hard time seeing guys like Lenin and Stalin as natural inferiors to the Czar and most organic communist revolutions were replacing a degenerating nobility or ruling class of colonial foreigners. Is climbing the party bureaucracy really so different from climbing the corporate ladder? No granted Soviet economics didn't work very well but I don't see that as a product of subverting a natural hierarchy.
More options
Context Copy link
We did have that one guy (I think his username was something to do with baseball?) who wouldn't ever talk about anything other than child emancipation. I think his arguments were retarded, but really his biggest flaw is that he was unwilling to talk about literally any other topic, it was always the same points rehashed over and over and over.
That's because, iirc, he had other sockpuppets for other topics.
More options
Context Copy link
And this is different than the GP's "natural order is man > woman, anything else is Satan"... how, exactly? (Though I get that JuliusBranson, whose alt that was, was/is just kind of like that- and to be fair mangoodwomanbad generally isn't used as a self top-level post, or when it is, it's not quite that naked.)
The trick about arguing against discrimination against children this way is that it's kind of like arguing against discrimination against those poor in worth more generally- and it might be justified simply on those grounds- it's simply what's in the water and thinking about it too much means you're only in it for the miscegenation, so to speak. (Actually, I guess tomboys also count as miscegenation under those rules.)
It might be helpful for you to draw up a list of the ways men are better than women, and the opposite; and then draw some conclusions about how societies might function. And the opposite. The exercise itself is likely to yield some interesting insights.
As a general rule if practically every historical human society seems to have agreed on something that seems crazy to you it might be time to stop and reflect.
What does this mean to you? What do you think it means to me? Consider Paradise Lost or maybe just the traditional understanding of what Satan, highest of the angels, did wrong.
People will notice that a truth-seeking site like this is 99% male and shrug and move on without considering why. This selective blindness used to bewilder me.
Instead of being coy I'll just say it forthrightly: You have been conditioned your entire life to never, ever think along this axis and it might be time to start asking questions about what's going on with that.
Does someone who thinks adults are superior to, and morally responsible for, children think that adults are good and children are bad? What would have to have gone wrong for someone to immediately leap to that conclusion?
What would a non-feminist modern western society actually look like to you? I'm honestly asking and not looking to argue, I just have a hard time modeling what you're actually wanting. Would a society like the 50s be acceptable to you or would it need explicit rules like the 1800s? Or something different to deal with modernity?
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