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.
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.
Yeah, I think this issue comes up a lot in arguments over terrorism. People who are against responding to terrorism often make the "body count argument." They argue that far fewer people get killed by terrorists than by other common causes of death, and therefore a vigorous response is inappropriate. A similar argument could be made about lynching.
The weakness in this argument -- in my opinion -- is that terrorism does more than kill people. It also inflicts terror. With terrorism, that's pretty much the point, thus the name. That's why terrorists kill people in flashy attention-grabbing ways. The same could be argued about lynching.
(Another thing to keep in mind is that as the saying goes, terrorism is the froth on a very nasty brew. In other words, for every terrorist there hundreds or even thousands of people who publicly or privately support the terrorist; want more things like that to happen; and would support much broader activities along similar lines.)
Turning back to the issue of false accusations, a typical scenario is that a woman makes an accusation of sexual misconduct against a man; there's a huge kerfuffle over it; people leap to conclusions and trash the guy publicly; even if the accusation is proven completely false there are little or no consequences to the false accuser. And even if the accusation is sketchy from the very beginning, people are ready to crucify the guy.
The net effect is no different from an act of terrorism. It inflicts terror and serves as a stark reminder to men that the systems is biased against them.
Which is why I now argue for approaches that glorify the same sex when it addresses the methods of terrorism common to that sex (and condemn the same sex when it fails to be perceived to do its utmost).
Right now, that's beginning to happen for mass shootings; more men carry guns, so more men can step in (indeed, even if they are not armed, they're more willing to do this now than they used to be).
Fantasies on both sides for "if a mass shooter came in, I'd stop them even if it might mean death" and "if I knew of a sexual predator, I'd expose them even if it might mean rape" already exist.
Indeed, I submit that men doing the pedo-hunting thing are actually highly destructive specifically because it's not in their gender role to address it.
Speculation: it's transgender behavior, and I think it explains the (very over-simplified) meme of why so many male 'pedo-hunters' (and the Chris Hansen cosplayers are almost always male) seem to be so predisposed to molestation themselves: they're either trying to atone for that fact, or they are doing it because they want to exercise the kind of power over another man that is 'reserved' for women. [And naturally, they target outlaws, just as any other kind of thief would: no recourse.]
Going full Nazi and murdering a bunch of children "because that's just the way we do things, fuck you" is very popular among both women and men.
(Actually, the Gaza thing's a great microcosm of that- women are more Jew-hating than Hitler, and men are more genocidal than Hitler. A society in full cooperation would have sent an expeditionary force, like the US did back in the early '90s to the Balkans. A society in full defection cannot.)
The upshot is that for a society to function at all, men and women can't ever be seen to be doing this.
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