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 -
Cornell 7, Law, Truth, Sex, and Morality
I would like to compare and contrast two sources on the Cornell Seven case. The first is https://cornellseven.com/ which is the top search result one gets when searching the term. The other is «District Attorney statement re: Jane Doe v. Cornell University, et al.»
The first source begins with
The second source largely agrees:
Unfortunately, this is where the sources diverge. The more popular, but less informative source continues:
The more informative source disagreeing:
The police's summary of Jane Doe's statements is where this comes from:
The popular source says:
But her statements say:
About being forced to go to 5:45 AM:
It would seem that the legal system has so far behaved reasonably well. No criminal charges have been filed, and the lawsuit was opened two weeks ago. Hopefully she will get no money, but now everyone will know about her. That would be justice in this case.
I think the demand for stories of male rapists outstrips the supply. A lot of people want the Cornell 7 to be rapists, but they aren't. In fact, they come off as rather meek to me. Something about sharing one girl between 7 men like they did just seems that way to me.
And that's where I see what I think this case says about the dating market and the relationship between young men and women in 2026. The demand for horny women also outstrips the supply, to the point that handsome, wealthy, intelligence, social Ivy League frat bros need to, in a rather fruity manner, have sausage fest 3-or-more-somes, instead of each of them getting girlfriends independently.
The actual root of this case, ironically, is that men are so respectful of what women say they want, that they now let a huge chunk of women sit out romance and sex entirely, producing extremely sexually deprived young males willing to to share a one night stand with 3 of their male friends. They respect her consent every step of the way and still wound up with a frivolous false allegation because their behavior sounds more rapey on the surface than a one on one.
One element at play here as well is that under the law, only non-consent is illegal, but maybe many people think this behavior was immoral nonetheless. But I don't agree. On what rational basis can that be justified? The only downsides to sex that I see are the risk of pregnancy, STDs, and unwanted pairbonding effects. The former two are well under control in modernity. The latter is largely controlled by the legal consent framework, although strangely the people who buy in to that framework the most tend to justify it on far weaker grounds than this. Hopefully this case will go down as a pretty big hoax like the Mattress Girl.
There are a lot of violent rapists, but women do not seem to care about them, and they don’t care about preventing that crime. They don’t advocate for harsher sentences and they don’t want to prevent the rape-inclined from migrating here. Neither do they want to introduce norms which prevent violent rape, like you find among the Gulf Arabs with 1/300th the rape per capita as us. It’s questionable whether women even care about justice as a concept: you don’t typically hear about a woman torrenting a book on judicial philosophy or discussing the merits and demerits of retributive justice online. They may occasionally discuss penal theories with their girlfriends but hardly of the judicial sort. It does not appear to me that they want “more justice” as evidenced by their complete and total disinterest in anything approaching an inquiry into matters of justice. I am exaggerating somewhat; there are of course women who pursue these fields in academia and produce important research. But the women yapping about the Cornell 7 are Not These Women but their opposite. They have probably never read the Wikipedia article on Blackstone’s Ratio.
I think what they care about is something more primitive and reflexive. I do not presume to understand them. But it appears that they enjoy attacking those whom they sense are the weaker coalition in power. Fraternity Bros have lost social capital in the West ever since they started being depicted as the villians of our culture in the 80s and earlier. That makes them an easy target: they are both disreputable and evil. But there is more to the story. Because the disreputable and evil hardly inspire passionate hatred among womenfolk. (They are not up in arms over Boko Haram, but Rho Chi’s harem). Perhaps the missing link in the explanation of their primitive reflexive hatred is that there is a weaker, losing coalition of men involved. This they hate, just as female chimpanzees hate such things. Among chimps, “a high proportion of coalitions involving female aggressors overall targeted males and occurred in the context of protecting a prior victim”, and in contrast to all-male or mixed gender chimp coalitions, the all-female coalitions typically attack a lower-ranked male: “among the coalitions involving only female adult [who] aggressed a male, [the victims were] mostly the lowest‐ranking adult males”. To me this makes perfect sense, because I just cannot imagine women responding in this fashion to an all-Native American or all-black fraternity. Those coalitions have more social capital in the sense that they possess the ability to destroy the reputation of any woman who goes against them. But predominately White fraternities, although they may have some abstract notion of value measured in Martha’s Vineyard acreage, have simply no social value in the grand scheme of mainstream American social life (particularly online, which is the new default social life). Consider also that the fraternity is the last vestige of the männerbund which is the last vestige of the traditional male tribal unit; this is all very
elementaryevolutionary.Somewhat more speculatively: it’s possible that these women enjoy hating on the out-group while at the same time they are jealous of the accuser. A plurality of women have fantasized about gangbangs; don’t hate me, I did not make the rules and I did not design them. The fraternity brothers are pretty good looking, and are a veritable Disney TV show worth of diversity; you could almost imagine one of them in a wheelchair. So perhaps this also plays a role. Was it Orpheus who was torn limb by limb by frenzied spurned redheaded Thracian women after the death of Eurydice? No, wait, was it Pentheus after the Dionysian orgy? I’m sensing a theme here…
Not sure how I'm supposed to want to read on when your comment starts with this.
46% of women voted for Trump in 2024.
A third of AfD's voters are women.
In recent elections, the LePen/Bardella National Rally party has been getting about equal support from men and women.
But Goodgoy, there’s no reason to believe that they voted for Trump because of his stance on rapists. The premier 2016 magamaiden who complained about sexual assault by foreigners was Laura Southern, and she later hopped on a private jet to spend time with Known Foreign Arch-GigaRapist Andrew Tate, where she was promptly MegaRaped.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link