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 -
What do you think of male-female dating dynamics relative to the culture war? I have a lot of thoughts on this but ultimately think the people worth pursuing are not crossing people off their list because they don’t believe in X or Y.
But it might be beyond your control. As an American, I remember swiping on tinder in London and seeing ‘Do not swipe if you are Republican’ but they replaced the word with something called the Tories. Clearly some people will only date people that share the same ideology. Which is fair if you want someone to nod along to whatever you say, I guess.
It gets tricky when you outright pretend to believe things you don’t. It’s not courageous or respectable. Not apologizing for what you believe is paramount to gaining the respect of your partner. Obviously, when I say this, I’m really talking about relatively conservative men dating liberal women. And honestly, except for far left people like Hasan piker that glorify violent revolution in such a way that they do a 360 and put off conservative ethos, I do think men women find attractive aren’t the male feminist, Bernie bro type. It’s almost like a yin and yang thing where you want some tension with your ideals.
Unlike religion, I really don’t see a need to agree with my SO on much of anything (odd to me that JD Vance and Usha married despite this). It’s sad to think that, on the spectrum of ‘not scaring the hoes’ political ideology, you could have a good thing with someone, say the wrong thing, and lose a relationship because of it.
Only thinking this because I’m coming to terms that I don’t necc need to date a based woman who appreciates old Sam Hyde stuff and edgy right wing leaning online happenings. I’d rather not select for political belief, find someone that will lightly argue with me, and has no interest in that stuff. Likewise, I’ll voice my opinion to her but not make fun of her for being on bluesky or whatever
Makes sense to me.
Suppose that I believe that Republicans (or Democrats, pick your poison) are all either not paying attention (ie, Stupid) or actually are all in on the party platform (ie, Evil). Why would I ever want to date someone I think is a lesser human than me?
Putting "No X" in the profile just saves time and effort for everyone involved.
Semi related: It's probably an artifact of the weirdly mixed politics of the area that I live, but even the apolitical women I know have started putting various flavors of "I think Trump is stupid and his followers are cultist idiots, if this offends you then fuck off" instead of "No republicans", simply because that filters out a good chunk of men that are a problem to date.
It really is an open field for women willing to tolerate conservatives in high income areas, they get to pick out of a huge lineup.
That is a curious way to phrase it, and fails the ideological Turing test hard.
Most people have outpgroups whose members they like less than members of their ingroup. For example, they might consider the classes below them to be the unwashed masses and the classes above them to be entitled snobs who do not deserve their wealth and status. Even the most enlightened utilitarian will like some people more than others.
But to explicitly impose a total ordering of human worth is definitely Nazi-coded, and almost nobody does it these days. Even our resident immigration skeptics would rather speak of "low human capital people" than of "lesser races".
Now, you can certainly make the argument that SJ does impose a total ordering, but its proponents would say that this is merely conditional on the history of oppression, and that in the SJ utopia white cisgender MAGA-voting men would not be sent to the salt mines, but be convinced of the wrongness of their beliefs and then life in harmony with everyone else or something.
But to go from "oh, you don't like $outgroup" to "you think $outgroup are lesser humans, just like the Nazis!" seems a poor argument.
I am using hyperbole for comedic effect, but to explain myself:
I believe that someone's qualities, their value, even their actions, should be decoupled from their moral weight; while simultaneously reckoning with the fact that some people are just lesser than.
Any moral, aesthetic, or effective judgment of anyone or anything is de facto placing them on a ranking. I don't just think I have different opinions than my political opponents, I am fundamentally BETTER than them as a human; and there are people that are fundamentally BETTER than me, who are purer of spirit and bigger of muscle and brain; even though we all deserve the same amount of moral consideration.
I think one of the places that some heinous behaviors spring from is the false consciousness required to believe that everyone deserves equal treatment because we're all the same in the end. No! The deontological value comes first and stands alone, the other things are all head measuring and have no effect on the first thing!
It's not going to happen of course and I only use my specific autistic terminology on these websites for a reason, but it is a coherent view IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link