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 -
Is it not evident to me that multiple 400+ word responses carefully misunderstanding my arguments and then voicing mostly disagreement is a sign of respect and more evident that it is the expected form of discourse here if you don't want to get a ban. Talking politely to me while thinking I am not deserving of higher education, management positions and a place in the workforce because my body makes me emotional and immature is hardly what I consider to be the makeup of a person who respects me and my choices. You say, "Leave the fact you are a woman and just dive straight into the actual facts.", but did the many men here who included the fact they are men and have used mostly anecdotal evidence and subjective, absolute statements doing the same? I would say no. I would say not even you, whose only evidence I see for why men are funny is your opinion of standup comedians and your opinion on the women around you.
I decline to try, because, as I said, it is impossible to have a conversation in good faith with someone you believe is biologically inferior to you. His most charitable interpretation of me would be amusement, or benign pity, because even if my argument was sound, it would not be because my character was sound but because a monkey hitting keys on a typewriter for an infinite amount of time with almost surely type any given text, including the complete works of Shakespeare, or, a broken clock is right twice a day.
The benefit of the rules here is that I can have a conversation with people who disrespect me, not that I can have a respectful one. I am quite sure if it was not for the strict efforts of the moderation team, most men here would indeed tell me "gtfo". Instead, they say, as seen above, "you might not be the best source of actionable and effective advice here.", which I find more conductive for a conversation, yes, but not at all indicative of respect for me.
Huh? Every reply could just be "I don't think you are engaging in good faith." if so. Yet people are trying to argue your points in detail. That said arguments misinterpret your points is ... just how complicated politics discussions often work.
More options
Context Copy link
I guess that depends on what you consider a "respectful" conversation.
We have a lot of people here with diametrically opposed viewpoints and identities, and by "diametrically opposed" I mean there are posters who literally believe certain other posters should be dead and/or stripped of their rights. This is not hyperbole (though fortunately, it's also a small slice of the general commentariat).
But generally speaking, this place isn't for "winning" an argument with another poster (though it's an easy trap to fall into). You may be talking to someone who doesn't actually believe you are sapient (we have those too) but that person isn't the only one reading your words.
Obviously, you aren't obliged to talk to anyone you don't want to talk to. But consider that you are not trying to persuade the hopeless, seething misogynist, even if that's the person you're arguing with.
I absolutely agree with your final sentence. Anecdotally, I never said a single word in /r/TheRedPill, and yet through sheer lurking, I found myself so thoroughly redpilled I was asking men on that forum what I should do as a woman to make men happy since I was so naturally prone to pissing them off. Those ghostly eyes watching us are always watching, after all. I like to think here we share counterarguments. If they are good or bad ones depends on those everwatchful lurkers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm more or less confident most of the users who responded to you would have responded the same regardless of the threat of the ban hammer or not. I've been seeing those names for years.
You might think you merely being a woman is enough to send everyone here into a rage or something but you do realize there are like 5 other women also in the thread?
So what?
I think the majority of the human population doesn't "deserve" higher education. I am not "disrespecting" anyone, I am proposing a way to optimize a system.
Much in the same way the system of dating would be optimized towards a male advantage if women majority non-economically productive majors were not subsidized. You wouldn't even have to think about the women at all, a libertarian can reach that exact same conclusion, and the outcome would be the same.
I also think they (most people) make bad choices. It would be disrespectful to lie about that!
I don't know why you are autistically latching onto this one point. Yes, I think men are in general funnier than women, sue me? Once again, what's the big deal if I hold that opinion?
I gave you literally all the evidence in the world for it, and it is all the evidence because there are more pressing matters to study than which gender cracks better jokes.
You can try or not, that's your call.
But I would say taking up the challenge is quite literally what the motte is for.
No one is entitled to respect. Firstly because you are a new account and no one knows you as a person. Secondly, "respect" is not a necessary precondition to have a conversation in a pseudonymous forum.
This aligns with men's experiences, once again, whats the big deal?
Do you not think that other women think that women as a group are in general better than putting on makeup or some extremely obvious majority-female activity? Are women "disrespecting" men by believing that or just believing in the truth?
You are making the whole thing about yourself and taking an issue with people disagreeing and saying that your general group might not be good at things. Those are not arguments, those are complaints.
If you want to defend the honour of your gender, do it, but you are making it all about yourself and making "omg people are mean to girls here can you believe it" statements. There's no way to engage with solipcism meaningfully.
I do think there are other women that think that all women are better at makeup, parenting, nursing, etc, due to biological preferences and yes, I think it is disrespectful to men to imply that they are incapable of certain things because of their bodies. I think all men and women are capable of exactly the same things emotionally and spiritually, sans physical capabilities due to hormonal differences which can be remedied with science.
I am making it all about myself because I am a woman, and every generalized comment about women is therefore directed at me. When you say men are funnier than women, you are also saying you are funnier than me, for no other reason than because of your body. The "big deal" of you holding that opinion is that I find it's a rather illogical and mean one, and tells me you have rather poor judgement, and also if I were to meet you in real life, I should avoid trying to be funny with you and people who agree with you because you will be hostile to all of my jokes in the company of other men. You have yet to provide me any evidence men are funnier than women other than your belief. If I think men and women can be equally funny because humor is not a physical trait, does that make it trounce yours because I believe it more than you? I'd say no.
I don't know exactly how to engage with absolute statements, which are neither statistically or personally relevant. People here make big claims about women - and therefore me - with little evidence other than personal anecdotes. Your characterization of people just saying "my" group "might" not be good at things is rather charitable for statements that literally call me indecisive, immature, emotional and illogical.
It really depends on what you are implying innit. It wouldn't be a stretch to assert men are physically incapable of childbirth.
I don't know where you got the "bodies" thing though, no discussion here as mentioned as such. The discussion here is focussing on brains and the cultural conditioning on those brains.
In matters of truth and false, which is more important some nebulous conception of "respect" or the truth? As others have already explained to you that "X is better than Y" can be charitably interpreted as " past a certain threshold there exists more X than Y".
No it isn't and I would go as far as to say it is narcissistic to think it is.
"X is better than Y" can be charitably interpreted as " past a certain threshold there exists more X than Y".
A trait doesn't have to be physical for it to be measurable. For example personality, intelligence, etc.
Most of the statements made here have strong statistical backing. You are unware of them because these conversations are built on a body of ideas that have been discussed here for years. And honestly, since you comprehend "X is better than Y, in general" as "all X is better than all Y", I don't think you actually understand statistics well enough to be swayed by them either way.
No one called you any of those things. They said women have a tendency to be more of those things and they provided their reasoning/evidence.
The thing is you are a low decoupler getting outraged at high decouplers talking. Ironically that is a very womanly thing to do.
You are proposing that discussions need not be if they "disrespect" certain groups, which is fine and dandy if creating a peaceful environment is your terminal goal, but that does come at the cost of the truth. While the high decouplers are scratching their heads thinking when did respect even come into any of this.
Brains are part of a body, no?
If you say "men are funnier than woman", and I am a woman and you are a man, it would not follow then you are saying "you" which can be supplemented with "a man" are funnier than "me" which can be supplemented with "a woman". Otherwise, I imagine one would say "most men" are funnier than "most women", no?
I don't think you can measure personality and intelligence, so I would have to disagree with you.
Do you have evidence of this strong statistical backing? Can you show me where my lack of understanding of statistics, which I took in highschool and college, causes me to fail to recognize that, from what I am understanding, when someone say "all" men they mean "not all" men?
I am not too sure how saying "women have a tendency to be immature" is not that same as saying "you have a tendency to be immature", since I am a woman. I would have to find though that your comment that my "outrage" is a "womanly thing" to be awfully uncharitable and insulting if you do not have evidence to support that.
Because every different forum has it's own discussion norms. The norms here are that when people say "X is more Y than Z" it is assumed that "past a certain threshold there exists more X in Y than Z".
Are these norms unequivocally good or universal? No. But that's just how things developed over time. The understanding of distributions of different means and tail effects are fairly well internalized around here.
Discussions here are not dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. In other places the interpretation you highlighted might be the norm/default, it's not here. So I think it's best you just assume that can move on rather than questioning endlessly as to why that is the case.
A commonly shared context smoothes communication. And despite that people still write 1000 word comments.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/into-the-longhouse/
The article highlights many ways in which male-dominated and female-dominated discourse differs. Which does not imply XY dominated and XX dominated. It implies the animus behind the discourse. And it's natural that XY human beings are more likely to operate in the masculine animus more than the feminine one.
Feminine discourse norms prioritize inclusion above all else. This is good for certain place, but is bad for certain places too. If all discourse becomes feminine you pay a price for it much in the same way if all discourse become masculine. There is an argument to be made that currently discourse in the West and wherever it exports is culture tends to be more feminine than masculine.
The evidence is that women are quicker to take offense to things that have implications that there is some sort of heirarchy.
You can't measure it but you can measure proxies for it. As long as the proxy is good enough, the purpose is served. You don't even need to measure personality for example, as long as you have an idea of how different one person is from another along a certain dimension, you can create a measurement system, such as the Big 5 factor model.
Many users explained to you many times the reasoning behind this and why people talk as much. I don't think it bears repeating over and over again.
Yes, just about all online dating data supports the claims people are making here.
Also, I am continuously on the defensive here. I can just flip it around and start asking you for evidence for your claims. I suggest you understand and engage with my points instead of repeatedly taking the discussion back to where it started (you taking offense).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No. When I say men are better than women at X, this can mean two things:
men are better than women at X on average
the share of men who are at least this good at X is higher than the share of women who are at least this good at X
If 1 is true, then 2 is necessarily true as well, but not the other way around. For example, "men are stronger than women" is usually understood to mean 1: if you put a random man and a random woman into an octagon, you should bet on the man winning. This doesn't mean when I tell Raquel Pennington men are stronger than women I am also saying I am stronger than her.
But 2 can also be explained by higher variance: women are "more average" than men at X, so there are more men very good at X and more men very bad at X than women at the same time. If you put a random man and a random woman and have them compete against each other, there's no way to tell who to bet on. But if you want a random man and a random woman to succeed at a task that is harder than average, you should bet on the man.
High enough variance can even counteract being worse at X on average if the threshold is sufficiently high, which might sound counterintuitive: as a completely invented example, men can have worse scores in darts than women countrywide, but the top N darts players can be mostly men at the same time.
What I ultimately wanted to say is that "men are better than women at X" never means "I, a man, am better than you, a woman, at X". At its worst, it can mean, "I, a man, am probably better than you, a woman, at X".
Then why use absolute statements about women if you don't mean to use absolute statements. Saying "men are funnier than women" is saying, in my opinion, "I am funnier than you." Saying "some men are funnier than women" or "most men are funnier than women" seems to be, in my opinion, more aligned with what I see you are trying to communicate.
Because it's a common shorthand when talking about distributions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No one thinks the statement "men are taller than women" implies that literally every man is taller than literally every woman: everyone knows that male dwarfs and female Amazons exist and that there is enormous variability in height between ethnic groups.
Then why not use "most men are taller than women" instead of "men are taller than women"?
The statements "most men are taller than most women" and "men are taller than women" mean exactly the same thing. The former statement includes two unnecessary words for no good reason.
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