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 -
Fake Outrage for a Fake Crisis
In one of the most annoyingly misguided media crusades in recent memory, the soccer world (read: Reddit, PMC, sports media, and virtue-signaling athletes who are delighted to be out of the Sauronic Eye for once) has fixed its laser gaze on Luis Rubiales, head of the Spanish FA (the top soccer organization in Spain; representing all club and national teams in the country). His crime, for which he is demanded to give up everything he now has and ever had, was a kiss.
After the Spanish National Team won the Women's World Cup last week, a traditional trophy presentation was held. In his jubilation, Rubiales kissed player Jenni Hermoso, just as thousands of soccer personnel have done thousands of times in moments of great triumph. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath, Hermoso laughed it off on camera as a passing awkward moment. In the days following that recording, I assume Hermoso has come to see that one moment of blasé honesty as a crucial tactical mistake (not that it matters; the original video of her has yet to make an appearance in any of the numerous "j'accuse" incendiary articles).
What Hermoso failed to realize in that moment (but has very much seized upon since) is that she had been granted the gift of victimhood. Not just as a woman, not just as a woman at the hand of a man, but as a woman footballer (one of the venerated subclasses, as elaborated upon in one of my past comments) at the hands of T H E P A T R I A R C H Y.
This one meaningless moment flashed overnight into an international dogpile, with consequences as wild as Rubiales' mother enduring a hunger strike. Unfortunately, Rubiales is experiencing firsthand that racism is not the only demand in excess of its supply, and that even a hint of raw meat, especially in the entirely invented space of "women's sports" "inequality," will be devoured, even if it was just shoe leather all along.
I agree that his life shouldn't be destroyed or anything, but imagine the following (assuming that you're a straight man):
Right after you win the World Cup, a famous and powerful gay guy whom you're kind of acquainted with, who is physically stronger than you, puts his hands on both sides of your head and kisses you on the mouth on international television.
His motives may have been pure, maybe even not sexual at all (although Hermoso is cute, so I doubt any straight man would really have zero sexual feelings about her even in such a moment). But I can imagine that having the world see this video could make her feel humiliated, on top of whatever unpleasantness she may or may not have felt in the moment of the kiss. There is no need to reach for a narrative of woke persecution to explain her sequence of reactions.
Funnily though, this is an example of the strange subtleties of gender politics. I guess that straight men sometimes kiss each on the mouth in some cultures in moments of elation, and it is not generally interpreted as sexual. So it is possible that Rubiales had no sexual motives whatsoever (although again I doubt it, given what she looks like). But if, let us say somehow if he didn't, then this would be an example of a man being treated as doing something wrong for just treating a woman the same way that he would treat a man.
But again, I doubt that he has no sexual interest in her.
The problem with your hypothetical is this:
My optimal response as the footballer kissed by a gay man is I deliver a severe beating to this queer. If I had done that, I'd be the one being cancelled. OTOH, our girl probably wishes she had delivered a strong slap to the face of him, she just was too shocked. But if she had succeeded she would be cheered, and probably everyone would be in a better situation today.
So, again, we are learning bad lessons: 1) You gain from your own inability to react appropriately to mild aggression; 2) You are punished much harder than is warranted if your opponent is less competent than the average.
This response is arguably unnecessarily antagonistic (for which it has been reported twice) but I'm more inclined to lay down a warning for "inflammatory without evidence." There are plenty of examples of predatory homosexuals being on the receiving end of social or legal fallout. Asymmetries in social responses to behavior based on sex roles surely exist, and almost every culture warrior takes a turn arguing that those asymmetries are good actually, so your response to the hypothetical isn't necessarily wrong. But you've framed it in a needlessly inflammatory way ("severe beating to this queer") instead of taking the time to consult direct examples of same-sex sexual harassment and how it has been treated by the public over the years.
Stated a little differently, even if the substance of your post is correct, you've framed it in a way that is more likely to make people angry and defensive than to persuade them of your own correctness. That's exactly the kind of outcome the rules exist to discourage.
That is why it would be "my optimal response" not a consensus building attempt at telling others how they should feel.
Regardless. This topic seems one where the heckler's veto is overly privileged if you aren't banning people for reporting things of this nature. IMO.
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