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 -
Why would you think that? I would seriously like to know your reasoning.
Actually, being able to impregnate women and have other men pay to raise the resulting child is a huge advantage, at least for some men.
Doesn't seem to be working in Israel, and the US is next in line.
I think that because historically male led societies have been brutal to disfavored or enemy men but have general taboos against adultery, presumably cause men don't care if some man dies in a jail cell but care if they might get cucked.
As for child support cucking other men...yes, that would be great. But you can also be called for child support too AFAIK.
As for the Haredi, they're a much larger percentage of Israel's electorate than any conceivable US comparison.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. From this, how does it follow that you would expect men as a group to organize in order to promote the interests of all men?
Right, as I said the US is next in line. What do you think is happening with ultra-religious groups in the US? The answer is that -- for the most part -- their populations are exploding.
Not organize promote the interests of all men as a whole. But to protect against something all men have a reason to protect against.
Ok, let me see if I understand your argument:
(1) At some point in the past, many male-led societies established social norms and laws against adultery;
(2) This shows that men can and do organize jointly on issues that impact all men;
(3) Therefore, in general one would expect men to organize jointly on matters that impact all men.
Is that your argument?
3 is too general. It's "Therefore we should expect men to continue to do so". My issue is that an inherent lack of in group preference alone can't explain it since past men figured out how to coordinate here.
I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure that the example you give is not really an example of coordination by men in general but rather coordination of elite men to protect their interests from the interests of non-elite men. I'm going by the Hebrew Bible, which is obviously not literally true, but I think it does give one a taste of how society was organized at the time norms against adultery were established. In those days, elite men married multiple women. Which means there were likely non-elite men who were the Biblical equivalent of incels. How convenient that these bachelors were subject to an order from the Almighty to refrain from making a move on the woman of a high status man. Even the phrase "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," addressed to men, suggests that this norm was about regulating the relations among men; the interests of women don't seem to be much of a factor one way or another.
So I don't think your example provides much evidence to support your argument.
The result is a generalizable rule against adultery for all though.
I think you're assuming a much freer situation for elite women (and less class stratification) than they had in many societies for this to be the central threat. If anything men would be more afraid of people of their own class.
I can hardly disagree given my point. Managing male anxieties over paternity is about managing male relations. But this still shows a concern for other men and didn't apply only to the rich. Throwaway gave a potential Pinkerian reason the elites not that concerned about managing relations in this way.
The Bible isn't actually that bad about this. It's still a generalizable principle. My final, irreversible apostatizing from Islam came when I saw Q33:53:
Yeah, you just can't convince me that this isn't Arab Joseph Smith after this and the Zayd story.
In this case Mohammed has the defense that he also released verses defending the rights of all men where they intersected with his. And the nature of the religion - which allows Muslim male exogamy but not female exogamy and sexual access to slaves and a preference for not enslaving Muslims - were all supposed to work in favor of giving a Muslim man options. I suppose that is another example of a group of men with shared interests setting up rules to benefit them.
Ok, but so what?
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