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 -
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