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 -
Of all the things to share a sentence. Having sex with animals or black people. You know, comparable examples of "extraordinary" deviance.
This is uncharitable. OP discusses "racial insecurity" as a factor in interracial cuckolding and @Sloot's comment can easily be read as a callback to that. Cuckolding and bestiality are both examples of fairly extraordinary deviance from baseline human sexual behavior, as far as I know. Jumping straight to "this must be racism" is all heat and no light. Don't do this.
I disagree. I actually considered the charitable interpretation rule before responding and decided to continue with a charitable view of their actual comment. I don't recall them discussing racial insecurity somewhere else in this thread. Having no memory of that I'm responding to this one comment by them.
"Blacked" porn isn't cuckold porn. It's just interracial porn with a black guy. A plain and unambiguous reading of their comment directly relates regular interracial sex and sex with animals as "extraordinary" examples. So I'm responding to what they wrote, not some unrelated set of claims that would be more charitable to their larger point.
I will take care to charitably interpret posts. And I'm not one to cry racism, so no worries there for the future. But I think I'm right about this one.
This seems like a reading problem, then. From the OP (to which the person you were responding was directly responding):
(Emphasis added.) As for this:
This may be a fair criticism; I admit that I did not go check on the exact nature of "Blacked," and will simply take your word for it here. But if "Blacked" porn includes any interracial cuckolding porn at all, then I think your interpretation still fails the charity test in this case.
It's trivial true that somewhere in all the internet there is some video that is both "blacked" and cuckold. Just like "blacked" is not anal or any other fetish, but some tiny portion of those videos will also include other categories of porn.
But we can't use the standard of a single counterexample in discussions. In all the content online and all the various interactions of hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of people, there must be some small set of Chinese robbers or "blacked" porn where they decided to something different than normal and added some guy to play a cuck.
Perhaps someone could even make a larger sensible point using those examples. But OP didn't. He merely dropped the incrediblyinflammatory statement about "extraordinary circumstances" such as sex with animals and black men. Not cuckoldry. Not some other reasonable point that you or I could come up with.
Rather than addressing some reasonable point that OP didn't make, I addressed their actual simple and clear statement. Charitability is not disregarding someone's words in order to substitute in unrelated but more sensible claims.
See, no, this is not enough charity. This is putting words in someone's mouth. "OP" isn't who you were responding to, OP is one level up from that. OP mentioned interracial cuckoldry, and someone else responded with a comment about "BLACKED adjacent behavior" which you took to mean something inflammatory, but which in context of the OP could, charitably, be a reference to the aforementioned interracial cuckoldry (which the brand BLACKED apparently famously produces, albeit not exclusively, which fact I am somewhat annoyed you have now made me research to be sure).
And here's the thing--maybe you're right! But the level of confidence, indeed insistence you're bringing to bear here is evidence of inadequate charity. No one actually said "having sex with black people is, or is like, bestiality," only that "BLACKED adjacent behavior" (contextually potentially a reference to interracial cuckoldry) was an extreme case, as is bestiality. Where someone does not make an explicitly inflammatory claim, context matters, and your earlier response to me suggests you were either ignorant of or ignoring that context.
Doubling down here with bad takes on the of meaning of charity does not help you. Don't lecture me about "actual simple and clear" statements when you are forced to repeatedly reword what was actually said in order to support your umbrage.
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