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 -
Dating is a matching market. Matching markets just tend to be hellscapes, and the larger they get the worse they get. But that's not the only problem. The change in balance in power is part of it. I just saw a thread on twitter where a man was derided because he said he want on something like 30 dates and they all went the same way: he took the girl out for dinner, they went for a walk, and he waited for them to initiate physical contact because he didn't want to be #metoo'd. Only 2 did (which is higher than I'd expect). You can claim this is merely paranoia on his part, but that requires putting your head in the sand.
From a certain perspective and to a certain limited extent, this is just things working as intended. The men who are stupid enough or paranoid enough to allow themselves to be totally stymied by the propaganda (i.e. undesirable men) will weed themselves out of the dating pool, leaving only the men who are savvy enough to actually navigate complex and adversarial social dynamics (i.e. more desirable men).
Yeah except there's readily available news stories, RIGHT NOW, about 'more desireable men' getting blasted with rape accusations YEARS after the act despite evidence on the ground showing it appeared fully consensual at the time.
So you are in fact showing that these men are not 'savvy' they just get what they want right up until one of their past conquests gets uppity enough to pull the trigger she had available all along.
You can't "navigate complex and adversarial social dynamics" when the actual dynamics can be unilaterally changed by one party a long time after the fact.
That dog won't hunt, even 'desirable' men can rationally opt out of that.
Isn’t this just the male equivalent of a woman saying “I can’t go to parties or bars or walk alone ever because you never know when a rapist will jump out from around the corner”?
It’s just paranoia + skill issue.
Women's claimed issue is easily solved by having a male chaperone, funny enough. Just get a boyfriend/husband to protect you bro, what's stopping you?
And said rapist can't jump out of the shadows 3 years later after you think you're actually safe. The danger is limited to when you're actually out and about.
Its a very different category of risk.
How, precisely, can a man mitigate the risk of any given woman he slept with accusing him of rape at a later date?
Is it just possible that the rewards on offer aren't really enticing given the 'skill' required to get them?
You're asking them to be extremely skilled at navigating a hostile environment. But if the reward isn't worthwhile, why would a 'desireable' man do so? What's the motivation/incentive? If its 'sex' then... he can just pay for it. Much more manageable risk profile, less skill required.
If its "companionship" he can get that from dudes, or a dog.
If its "romance, marriage, children" women are not providing those as much in the past, objectively.
What's left?
This reaches the point of unreasonable neurosis. Nothing stops a random person you pass on the street from just abruptly jumping you and bashing your head on the curb, the laws of physics allow this to happen. Yet, people still go outside.
This type of thing happens socially all the time anyway. I can’t even begin to tell you how many times I’ve experienced shit like this all throughout my youth. If you came upon two people fighting in an alley, you wouldn’t automatically assume that each has a good reason for wanting to hurt the other person. You’re perfectly aware that one of these people just attacked the other person, for no good reason, and the other’s just doing his best to defend himself. Unfortunately, I’ve managed to collide with a fair number of these people throughout a good chuck of my life. For reasons I’ll never understand when it comes to the social sphere, everybody automatically assumes there must be two valid sides to every argument. This is just straight up not true. Some people are in fact, Total. Fucking. Assholes. They’re unscrupulous. They’re dishonest. They’re powerfully self-deceived. They’re narcissistic. Some people are just walking case studies in various psychopathologies and bad faith. And yet somehow ordinary people still manage just go full retard, come around and take these people seriously.
Situations like this happen all the time, on a daily basis. And too often whenever you try bringing it to light to someone things just go haywire and they say things like, “Well why would this person lie about this?” I can think of a million reasons why. To cause harm to someone they don’t like, to exact revenge on somebody, to deflect blame and responsibility, to avoid embarrassment, to get something they want, for the thrill of getting away with it. I don’t fucking know. Why do they? How normal people become so gullibly duped into coming to the defense of pathological liars, and attack normal, honest and upright people is something I will never understand.
I don’t know if there’s anyone here who ever watched the movie The Strangers (the not-so-good horror film). There’s a scene in the end of the movie where the last surviving victim of the killers is captured and bound to a chair, while being hysterical and the killers are silently standing right before her; and she asks them, “Why are you doing this?” And there’s a silence, followed by the voice of the female attacker who simply says, “Because you were home.” (There is no reason.)
On the flip side, there are some who—depending on the demographic characteristics of the supplier of the random act of violence—assume that the receiver of the violence must had done something to deserve it (like said a no-no word), or believe that the supplier is the real victim here of societal oppression that would cause him or her to lash out.
That’s why the rule of thumb in these situations regardless if you’re a witness or not is to mind your own business. For all I know the guy receiving it just raped the man’s daughter and deserved it anyway. Never forget the cardinal rule of gun running in Lord of War: “Never pickup a gun and join the customer.” If you want to make it your problem, then you, also, will be dealt with accordingly.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link