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 -
Over the last decade or so, I've heard the name Eric Swalwell a few times.
First, because he got caught up in a Chinese Honeypot, then because he obliquely threatened to nuke me.
He has reappeared in the news recently, not only as a California gubernatorial candidate, but also as an alleged rapist. Fox news is reporting that he will step down.
The balance of power in Congress will likely remain unchanged, as GOP congressman Gonzalez will also be stepping down, though the impact on California politics may be notable.
Historically, California's executive branch has been a powerful feeder into future presidential races. The fall of Swalwell will cause a localized power vacuum that may have unexpected repercussions.
As someone who is not a California resident, I have no special insider information here. Would any locals care to weigh in on how this is impacting things within the state?
Awhile ago, someone had a post talking about feeling oddly disappointed by the bribes people associated with the Trump administration had been caught taking, as many of the dollar amounts seemed pitifully small. Scott made a similar point in Too Much Dark Money in Almonds: when you consider the power and influence afforded to the executive and legislative branches, the amount of money invested in campaign donations and PACs seems impossibly small.
I feel the same way looking at photos of the Chinese honeypot in question. I'm not saying she's ugly or anything, but she seems decidedly... mid? And this is coming from someone who has a thing for Asian women! There are plenty of Asian women who aren't even famous for their looks who are more attractive e.g. Tiffany Fong, Yvette Young, Jia Tolentino. I've personally met Chinese women who were hotter than her.
Looks aren't everything. If Ms Fang was in fact part of a Chinese Honeypot, then she was potentially trained in the arts of seduction at a government black site dedicated to the craft. Thousands of man years and billions of dollars may have gone into research and development of novel techniques and grueling conditioning.
The way she fucks probably violates the Geneva convention.
Indeed. I have often noticed how men who seem reasonably picky can be seduced by a very plain woman who is intent on it. As has been discussed many times, men are usually doing the work of pickup and seduction. When a woman makes an effort, especially if she knows what she's doing, it's all too easy. Add in a midlife crisis and/or marital doldrums and a lonely dude is an easy target.
Women aren't aware of how far being moderately pleasant and proactive can get them if not absolutely hideous
I suspect that there are all sorts of social mores at play here that prevent women from making what could arguably be considered a "first move," up to and including a reputation among...other women, who would (or might) judge them for this. I was a trainer in a large group for a while (mostly women) and the one woman who was demonstratively affectionate toward me and the other male trainers was almost unanimously turned on (that is to say, turned against, thanks @urquan) by the rest of the female trainees. This was always done subtly except behind closed doors. There might also be the notion that a girl wants to play hard-to-get, but I'm not sure how far that goes.
A woman who communicates interest with a stranger even subtly is rare, outside an alcohol-drenched setting. Prolonged or repeat eye-contact, a smile, these can be very fetching. The nuclear arm touch. And of course sometimes it's the talking loudly to another female friend in your presence about some topic in which you may have interest, and deliberately avoiding eye contact with you when doing so. The modern equivalent of dropping the handkerchief.
Then of course there is the fear that if you show interest a guy will turn into a slobbering handsy weirdo who turns stalker. This is I think overblown but I do not deny it happens--it's certainly the scary version of why to be demure.
Note: Sometimes a smile and an arm touch is just a smile and an arm touch.
OH I had to re-read this a couple of times, because I was trying to figure out if you were really saying "she was turned on by the female trainees" i.e. was somehow a very loose bisexual girl who personally liked both you and the female trainees, or if you meant "she almost unanimously turned on the rest of the female trainees" i.e. they were all sapphic for her. Wow, does the sentence make more sense when I read it right.
I don't know how you could have phrased it better, but this perhaps is my punishment for skimming motte posts while sleepy.
I've had it happen, but typically with extreme plausible deniability, in the sense that their interest could be understood platonically and their invitations to date could be understood as an invitation for a nice time with a friend. This could be an attempt not to look too eager/excessive/expoitable, unfamiliarity with how you clearly show interest to someone (women are often pretty bad at it, because they aren't forced to practice), a kind of hedging of bets in case someone isn't all that compatible, or plain simple insecurity and rejection sensitivity of the same kind that causes men to orbit sometimes instead of stating their interest clearly. Probably a mixture.
Reasonably attractive and not obviously insane women generally have so little experience with casual rejection (the female equivalent tends to be getting roasted and ghosted) that - well, imagine yourself in high school, never so much as asked out a crush before, going up to a girl and having her laugh in your face.
... or, in your twenties, it's "Sure! I'm really busy at work right now, though, but I'll call you later!" And, thirty-five years on, I'm still waiting for that call . . .
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