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 -
Your premise is simply wrong.
Based on the multiple text messages between Jane Hoe and Male #1 - which continued until just after her disinvitation from the halloween party - this does not appear to be the case. Male #1 apologized for how things went down, Jane Hoe said it was crazy but fine, and suggested repeating the experience under more controlled circumstances.
Note also that according to her statement, Male #1 was unconscious when Male #3 knocked on the door to his own room. She let him in and then they started making out. Again: male #1 was unconscious after Jane Hoe (285lb deadlift) fucked him into submission while he was high on ketamine.
Later on Male #1 and Jane Hoe commiserated about how people were criticizing both of them over their private sexual behavior.
The position of the men she had sex with (or at least male #1) on the Halloween party is that "chi phi is your house and you are welcome here".
This does not sound like Male #1 - her primary interest - dropping her. This all sounds like two (three?) people who find each other hot starting a relationship that might involve group sex. As for males #3-7, Jane Hoe explicitly dropped them. In her texts she suggested repeating the experience "but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine".
The fraternity president - who did not have sex with her - disinvited her. He is likely also the male who "shut down whatever the fuck this is" and was probably acting under pressure from the sorority queen bee regarding the disinvitation.
So the actual situation is not what you describe at all. It's Male #1 treating Jane Doe kindly, but third parties calling her a slut and harming her social life.
Is there a neutral source giving an overview? News articles only summarize it and social media is piece by piece.
Just out of sequence screenshots, nothing complete.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Plus one can just reject the premise: Even if they dropped Lucy Craig like a hot potato afterward, so what. Male #1 or the other men don’t owe her social or emotional alimony as a form of perpetual debt simply because she whored out for them one night.
If women are adult and Empowered enough to have the freedom to hoe, they can put on their Big Girl pants and deal with the social or emotional consequences that may come with the hoetry, such as *gasp* getting uninvited from a halloween party. How dare that fraternity president disrespect her Wonderfulness!
More options
Context Copy link
Even if it's not entirely legally true, it's generally considered in frats that the president is the face of the frat both in dealing with the university and the legal system, and shoulders a lot of personal liability in his role. The job of the president is to be the most paranoid and stressed-out guy in the house, not an easy job. I've known many cases where everyone's chill with something and the president has to step in and shut it down (and, very occasionally, like this, it backfires horribly).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link