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 -
News of obviously false rape claims appear in national media about as frequently as mass shootings do. The perpetrators are from the same social class, look the same, and are just as unpunishable.
If fear of mass shootings is not considered "unreasonable neurosis", fear of false rape claims can't be either.
Standing down from one can't be done unilaterally- this has been tried, and all that resulted is more unreasonable neurosis. Men and women must realize that and agree to stand down together.
I wouldn't assume that @Skulldrinker doesn't consider fear of mass shootings to be unreasonable neurosis. I certainly do. The vast, vast majority of people will never be caught up in a mass shooting. It's silly to worry about them.
The sheer number of women destroying (through law) part of the male gender role (men as the martial gender) as collective punishment for a very small number of men abusing that power are indicators that a significant amount of women believe otherwise.
In the same way, the sheer number of men destroying (through inaction) part of the female gender role (women as the gender men fight for) as collective punishment for a very small number of women abusing that power are indicators that a significant amount of men believe otherwise. [They don't have legal power, and men and women are different; so they protect themselves in ways that are mirrored, but not fully symmetric.]
What does historical data show me I gain as a responsible man by taking the high road? Well, I suffer more from female misbehavior ("it is for the good of society that the thing you use to attract women- property- isn't something for you to protect, now let's never prosecute any wrongdoing involving that ever") and destructive women chanting "teach them not to rape" [translation: "it's not our gender's job to fix it, #yesAllMen"] when we take issue with being falsely accused.
What does historical data show women they gain by taking the high road? Well, they suffer more from male misbehavior ("it is for the good of society that the thing you use to attract men- sexual access- isn't something for you to protect, now let's never prosecute any wrongdoing involving that ever") than women who attack at the first provocation as per their legal right and destructive men chanting "fix mental health" [translation: "it's not our gender's job to fix it, #yesAllWomen"] when they take issue with being shot up.
It is unreasonable to expect men, or women, to solve for peace alone. One side can stop defending, but the other will continue attacking, and each has documented evidence of this that goes back a long time. Both are prisoners of the dilemma.
If you wanted to get out of it (and assuming those were the only two grievances, which they are not), perhaps one might consider this approach instead:
When a man does evil with his physical violence, we celebrate the male virtue of those who resisted all instincts of physical self-preservation, and for that reason physically deleted him.
They face the threat their own gender creates through its inherent physical power, and it is dispatched with power and fury as expected of a man working correctly.
The failure of men, and those that are to be prosecuted alongside this one, is they which did not do their utmost in the moment of honor to resist that violence. Those men who, hearing the raping and killing, encouraged it by running away, not subduing it such that it might be brought to justice. [This would be, for example, Uvalde cops- we can check cell phone location records, we know who they are.]
The casualties of this bad man are those that have paid the price demanded by purposefully refusing to lock all men away, such that women may continue to uphold male virtue. For a civil war, against female virtue (of life itself), was waged here, and it was male virtue that paid the price to defend it.
Alternately:
When a woman does evil with her social violence, we celebrate the female virtue of those who resisted all instincts of social self-preservation, and for that reason socially deleted her [basically, a woman who falsely claims a sex crime in this fashion is treated as any other sex offender is now- that will ultimately come down to 'did she scream?', where 'knowingly and intentionally destroyed her ability to do so' is always 'did not scream'.].
They face the threat their own gender creates through its inherent social power, and she is dispatched with power and fury as expected of a woman working correctly.
The failure of women, and those that are to be prosecuted alongside this one, is they which did not do their utmost in the moment of honor to resist that violence. Those women who, hearing the gossip and slander, encouraged it by repeating it, not building a case against it such that it might be brought to justice. [This would be, for example, those who were collaborated with to perpetrate the sexual falsehood, and news organizations that printed the unproven accusation- we can check browser histories and accounts, we know who they are.]
The casualties of this bad woman are those that have paid the price demanded by purposefully refusing to silence all women, such that men may continue to uphold female virtue. For a civil war, against male virtue (of action itself), was waged here, and it was female virtue that paid the price to defend it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link