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 -
While that would seem a silly outcome, if that was the sexually conservative upshot everyone acknowledged and codified it'd actually sufficiently more rational and tolerable (in that the mores would be clear) than the current situation.
The current situation is not a general norm that sleeping with groupies or casual sex is bad, quite the opposite - the sex positive norms are still parroted (though some feminists do insist on this infantilizing view). Case in point: Roiland and Avellone were both taken down for alleged assault and grooming teenagers.
It would honestly be better if we went back to a Victorian "being a cad is bad" norm since then you wouldn't need to accuse someone like Avellone of being a sexual assaulter to smear him.
Every major liberal social movement of the past century has one goal in mind: sustainable development.
Transgenderism, Feminism, Gay Rights/Equality, Abortion are the best because they sustain development.
The goals of “MeToo” and the issues of “Groomers”, “Creepers”, “Cheaters” and “Power Imbalances” are all about one thing: sustainable development.
Turning the age old practice of seducing a younger woman or a workplace subordinate into an unthinkable social crime is about one thing: sustainable development.
These are cultural safeguards set in place to ensure our betters “guide reproduction responsibly” (their words).
Is this darkly hinting? I'm not sure what the externalities/failure modes of false accusations of sexual harassment/assault are supposed to do for "sustaining development." Development of what? The economy, civilization in general?
You’re not?
The more barriers to men and women having sex with one another, the less babies there will be. I’m not sure where you’re getting tripped up. Every major social standard we have left is fundamentally dedicated to damming this drive.
“Darkly hinting?” Sustainable development is the U.N.‘s term. Haven’t you heard? There are too many humans. “Sustainable development” is a euphemism for the correction of this large problem.
That's what I'm getting at: you're using euphemisms. If you want to argue that "the chilling effect of MeToo on sexual relations is not a bug, but a feature intended to drive population control as desired by The Shadowy They," you can just argue that plainly. It may be declasse, it will probably attract a hard counterargument, but you won't get the likes of me noticing their own confusion.
I don’t think there’s anything “Shadowy” about the U.N. or their explicitly stated goals. Sustainable development is also a good thing, and the effect of “MeToo” isn’t chilling, it’s necessary.
One mustn’t alert whom one is forced to deceive.
Being out of fashion has never bothered me. I’d like to hear your counterargument if you have one.
Yes, but "To achieve our stated goals, we will manipulate social media to amplify accusations of sexual misconduct, creating a chilling effect against casual sex that reduces fertility" is a strategy that, if it exists, exists in the shadows. As do whatever organs the UN is using to enact said strategy.
This approach would be dubious IMO, as casual sex rarely results in children these days, and the hypothetical blowback from the ploy being discovered is immense.
Unless you're suggesting the coordinators have such an iron grip that discovery or blowback are non-factors? In which case, why are they pussyfooting around the issue with sneaky psyops rather than just putting contraceptives in the water supply or something?
Your ideas suppose the elites are amazingly powerful and coordinated in pursuing this end, but at the same time, they've contented themselves with a 100 year policy of slowly changing gender roles through ad hoc puppeteered social movements, rather than just enacting the New World Order and having done with it.
Thanks for your reply.
Casual sex results in more sex which results in a higher likelihood of having children. The new quasi-Puritan movement is there to make just about every form of potentially procreative sex "icky" whether it's the Rad Fem "All P in V sex is rape" or the more mainstream "You're 30 and she's 19!? Yuck!". The exceptions to this ickiness of course are the ones which couldn't possibly lead to children (hence the "don't kink shame"-type dogma). This is why no one in a mainstream film is having straight sex but gay sex is all the rage*. If you can funnel the sexual appetites of the masses into avenues which are fundamentally incapable of leading to children (especially by accident) then you're sustaining development. A careful look at every social institution, standard, and taboo suggests the very shape of society is to ensure only those who really really really want children are going to be able to have them, and if they're going to have them without the necessary personal wealth and self-establishment the children will simply be wards of the State. It's a de facto eugenicist world.
Discovery of blowback is a non factor if it's effective. Agitprop is only effective when no one knows it's agitprop. Very little has changed since the days of Socrates and the Tyrants, most any "grass roots" movement is in actuality a top-down initiative. Planned Parenthood and early Feminism were explicitly eugenicist at their inception and nothing but the selling model has changed in their goals and practical social effects.
Even the flags of the Woke movement displayed on every large company's logo (and their corresponding changes in personnel) can be traced to a series of Orwellian letters written from the CEO of Blackrock to every major Fortune 500 company (these changes were presaged by a document released by the U.N. in 1994, btw).
I think the goal is ultimately stasis, not destruction, not "depopulation" or anything sinister. This is why the Woke movements and suchlike are all-permeating and so incredibly loathsome to any decent person, they're meant to be biological dead-ends for the foul. If anything, I'd say it's good -- it's a Conspiracy of Benevolence if you will.
*Ever see a woman get eaten out by another woman in a mainstream film or TV series? Heaven sings. Her sex with men is usually a close up on her having a bad time (unless she's a light skinned woman having sex with a dark skinned man). I'd encourage you to look at the most popular TV shows and films with a particular focus on their sex scenes (or lack thereof). I marvel at how uniformed the tropes are and I suggest a centralized node. I think this is the way all ideas have ever worked, it's odd to me how it's considered unthinkable to most everyone else -- that they honestly think "Monkey see monkey and do" and think that's less magical than the notion of propaganda being a top-down process.
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