site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34513 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

16
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well, looking for advice on Reddit is unhappily going to result in the idiots coming on to call you all sorts of names.

And now I'm going to prove myself one of the idiots, because hey! "literal virgin (despite being 21 years old)".

Now, I realise that 21 is over the age of consent and that today's youth engage in fornication outside of marriage, and that this is now socially acceptable, but still. Why should his age have anything to do with it? At what age is it no longer acceptable to be a literal virgin? At what age should he have lost his virginity? Is the new rule that once you hit 14, you should be banging everything with a pulse, be you male, female, or one of the Heinz 57 genders?

I am sympathetic to the guy, even though his approach was the worst possible, but as you say, that's down to cluelessness rather than caddishness. At the same time, I don't think "21 and still not dipped his wick" isn't an attitude to help people like him be confident or reduce self-loathing. "Oh great, another person on the Internet telling me I'm a loser failure fuckup".

I'm glad you point out that virgin-shaming is bad and that blaming the guy for not being a Don Juan is wrong. And yeah, this is exactly the way to drive guys into being incels.

At what age is it no longer acceptable to be a literal virgin? At what age should he have lost his virginity?

I know you're not asking literally, just hypothetically, but still, from my experience, the general societal attitude is that guys should probably lose their virginity by age 18 or 19, or else they're probably doing something wrong, or they're weird, or something. Also, they probably should have at least touched a girl's breasts by like 16 or 17 and kissed a girl by 15. Personally, I don't judge anyone who is older and is a virgin, and I understand that every is different and should take things at their own pace, but there's some part of me that believes that if a guy hasn't done it by 20 or 21, he's probably trying but failing and not going about it the right way.

Huh, reading these general social expectations now is similarly irritating to what it would have been 15-20 years ago. I think I'd've been better at articulating why back then, though in an annoying self-righteous way that is just cringy, but still... this somehow summoned my early 2000s teenaged rebellion mode. I'm not sure what to make of this.

To clarify, by "literal virgin (despite being 21 years old)", I meant to convey:

  • "virgin" is sometimes used colloquially and insultingly online to just mean "awkward around women", but in this case the guy is a "literal" virgin.

  • I mentioned 21 years old because it is an unusual age to still be a virgin and highlights likely social awkwardness, I didn't mean to imply any moral failing on his part for that.

Is English your first language? 'Literally' these days is often used for derisive emphasis. "My boss is literally a jackass", "What a literal retard you are", etc.

To be clear, your English writing is perfect and I wouldn't suspect anything usually. But literally does not mean literally literally, literally.

English is my first language, and @Testing123 is using the word correctly (and the people you mention are using the word wrong regardless of if they are a native speaker). People are shockingly bad at English, but that doesn't make "literally" mean something different just because they're shit at the language.

I can be somewhat accepting of the Valley Girl usage as a kind of emphatic hyperbole -- but this is the first I've seen someone argue that this means the normal usage is deprecated.

Concerning.

Man, I wish you were right, but it's time to give up the ghost. "Literally" is used for emphasis much more than for its original meaning. The fact @FarNearEverywhere assumed @Testing123 was using "literal virgin" as an expression of disgust shows that even highly literate people are using sense two as the primary definition these days.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats