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 -
Each of these has an interesting linguistic feature; a double first personalism (non-technical term that I just invented).
"I" and "my" x 2
"I" and "I" x 1
My theory is that this is a way to create a kind of double wall against personal responsibility. It's not that this woman failed to use good judgement. No, her "gut" knew at one point. Then again, at another point, her "head" was elsewhere (suggesting that in her hear of heart (or gut of guts?) she know what was going on.
Even in the slightly different "I suppose I must have been desperate" she didn't phrase it as "I was desperate" but that this other "I" in the past was the one doing the desperate-ing.
People sometimes say things like "I was a much different person back then." Mostly it's a term of art that simply means "I've changed a lot." That's fine. But there are some people out there who literally think in terms of full personality / character / existence do-overs and alterations.
I don't think this woman sees herself, today, as having willingly gone out with a guy who slapped her and was a fall down drunk. I think, in her mind's eye, she sees that as having happened to someone else and that she - the today she- now, somehow, has to face the consequences for that poor other woman.
Which should scare you even more because it means she has internalized, perhaps, zero of these lessons.
@2rafa has excellent comment here that, I believe, makes a very similar point. A woman who flaunted her ability to get the attention of much older men, several years later, attests that she was more or less human trafficked against her will. How could such cognitive dissonance occur? Well, when you no longer see you then as continuous to you now and create a whole other character in the story, it gets much easier.
The Last Psychiatrist made this point before. If you get into the mental habit of blaming your mistakes on outside circumstances, of saying that "somebody else" had too much to drink and made a fool of themselves – eventually it becomes impossible for you to feel responsible for your positive achievements as well.
Really? But we all know, or know of, losers who manage to shake off responsibility for bad stuff but embrace responsibility for good stuff.
True, some people are better at compartmentalization than others. But I'm not talking about the more general case of a boss who takes credit for his subordinates' hard work while blaming them when his projects don't go according to plan. I'm talking specifically about people who develop the defense mechanism of referring to nasty things they did as if they were committed by a third party.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link