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 -
Didn’t this just happen to the creator of Rick and Morty?
I’m ready to say I will never believe a rape accusation unless (1) it makes it through the courts and (2) I can see the evidence myself. I might make an exception in cases where I can evaluate the repute of the woman — let’s be honest, false accusers fit a certain type. What other option is there? False accusations are endemic for the most significant creative men in America. Something similar happened to the frontman of Arcade Fire not long ago.
If we want to end sexual assault, our best bet is to reintroduce guardrails for male-female interaction (like every developed society in history). We can’t implement a norm of texting affirmative consent, because women do not want consent to be verbally agreed upon (read the testimony of women getting the ick about this online, it’s hilarious). Unless you don’t want to have sex, asking women to clearly write out what you can do to them when they get to your apartment is a false start. Women clearly desire the costly signal of a guy only relying on implicit consent, and also appear to like the inherent high stakes and seduction of the situation. This is probably biological. You can draw a line from the oldest tradition of husbands “wifenapping” his bride from her family, to the convoluted sexual games which make affirmative informed consent impossible.
This whole thing can be fixed with just: don’t hang out or drink with guys you don’t want to have sex with. Don’t go into a guy’s place alone, ever, unless you want to have sex. Don’t hang out with guys you don’t trust. Literally you can put to bed (pun intended) our whole cultural neuroticism by enacting these rules. I had a conservative Pakistani Muslim friend in college who gave me a shocked look when I thought we were going to her apartment together (we were walking and she needed to grab something). She explained she would never be with a guy alone in an apartment. Guess which demographic is probably not being sexual assaulted?
Yes, but in the course of the legal proceedings for domestic assault and kidnapping (technically, preventing someone from leaving by blocking a door or taking their keys counts as attempted kidnapping, so it sounds like a drama-filled domestic spat), there was a bunch of fishing around and apparently he made some joke about a 14-year-old fan being Jailbait while interacting with said fan. Which also turned him into a groomer and a pedophile according to Reddit. So legal exoneration now doesn't do much for him. Plus he generally has a drunk-texting habit, which provides additional examples of being "creepy," the ultimate sin.
In the course of this, there were also claims that he hadn't actually done any in-person work apart from voice stuff on any of his shows or projects since Rick&Morty Season 3, which I'm slightly skeptical of; it sounds like all his friends and co-workers distancing themselves and claiming they never liked him anyways and none of those projects should suffer cancellation because they don't represent his work. Buuut, you can tell on the Season 3 R&M commentary that he's less involved; there's a lot more guest writers and randos and vapid LA circlejerking; and there's no Season 4 Commentary, which is consistent with less engagement from him. It's also consistent with someone who was muscled out of his own show by Dan Harmon. Genuine shrug here, the evidence is ambiguous, everyone involved has motivation to lie or elide.
My own hypothesis is that guys who luck into fame and success (and the sexual opportunities that come with it) later in life often don't know how to handle it, they're the eternal underdog who finally caught the car. Famous men who haven't lived through decades of sexual deprivation before becoming famous have better OpSec and don't fall for Crazy so easily.
More options
Context Copy link
The old rules are to protect men as much as women- a conservative Pakistani Muslim man knows he’s not supposed to take a woman into his apartment alone, too.
More options
Context Copy link
Easier said than done. You might just end up creating a multipolar trap.
A lot of men would simp/do favors for women for a potential go at even the most minute probability of sex. It's in every womans individual self-interest to exploit this. Women who defect from the "don't invite men unless u want to fuk" equilibrium gain the advantage for themselves only, Simultaneously tarnishing the reputation of the "prudes"... for being well "prudes".
I think the above is a male-braind take, if anyone has a female mirror of the failure modes, please share.
Yeah the entire point of female sexuality/seduction is plausible deniability. A girl who's into you will suddenly become gigantically gullible/culpable to the most overt and sleazy approaches, but will claim ignorance if the vibe's gone.
More options
Context Copy link
If there's one thing women are generally capable of doing, it's inflicting reputational damage against other women who violate norms of acceptable behavior. If there's two things women are generally capable of doing, it's the above plus paying a lot of attention to the likelihood of them receiving reputational damage as a result of that process.
More options
Context Copy link
And it’s fine for women to do this defection, provided that they understand the risk is squarely on them. The utility of the rule is that it cures our dread and uncertainty regarding an activity that should be beautiful and pure (dating, sex). I imagine this was the rule for legislating rape for most of civilizational history: “you invited the man to your place alone? You willingly drank with him? Others have testified to your ill repute? Case dismissed.” The amount of harm immediately cured by this norm is infinitely better than the harm introduced (women no longer allowed to hang out with questionable men alone; who cares?)
Our? You mean men's. What do women have to gain from your arrangement? They lose out on sexual opportunities, the favours they often gain for implicit promises of sex, AND on the plausible deniability that this is what they were doing in the first place. In exchange for what? If they're paranoid about being assaulted, they already have the option not to chug 5 Martinis and go alone to a dude's room at 2 AM.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That case was dropped, not settled with an apology from the "alleged" victim.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link