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 -
I think that’s the issue though. If women want “no means no” that no has to be clear and you have to mean it. It cannot be a woman doing everything up to a point, with a suddenly you went to far thing at the end.
Why not? I mean, you may feel "like it’s absolutely on the woman if she doesn’t want sex to make it absolutely perfectly clear with no contradictory signals," but it looks like quite a lot of our society disagrees. (I have a somewhat relevant story about overhearing one side of a cellphone conversation waiting in line at the welfare office which illustrated cultural differences on this topic between modern Western norms and Native Alaskan ones, as well as the human tendency to interpret people's motives through our own cultural lenses.) You say they cannot, and yet many clearly are. There's no requirement for them to follow your "personal rule." If they decide instead that consent can be withdrawn at absolutely any time, for any reason (or none at all), no matter what previous signals, ambiguous or not, she has previously given, then why can't they just enforce such a rule?
Except that a consent that isn’t really clear and can be altered or withdrawn on a whim without even having to make it clear to the other person is simply unfair to that person, especially if it can have very serious consequences for the other person. If I can get your life ruined for a mistake, I don’t see how it can be fair that I not give you clear communication about when I don’t want you do do something. If I will shoot you if you come into my yard, I’m at th3 very least an ass if I don’t tell you that if you step on the grass you die.
More options
Context Copy link
If you have enough power you can do what you want with enforcement, but if women want men to act as if 'no means no' or 'no means never' they do have to mean it. Otherwise the incentives don't work out; you can't ratchet up the penalties high enough to discourage Chads (especially not in western society, but not even if death by torture is on the table), because they think they can get away with anything -- and they often can.
Men chase and women choose. One of the ways they choose is by putting up barriers to filter out the easily discouraged. If you add formal punishment (beyond the rejection itself) to guys who challenge these barriers and are rejected, you reduce her false positive rate -- men who pass that "challenge my barrier" test but are rejected anyway. You also increase her false negative rate -- men who fail the "challenge the barrier" test but should have been accepted, but she doesn't care, there's a surplus of available men on dating apps. The net effect is the Chads have less competition and the others are wiped from the board.
And if you're not one of those "wiped from the board," then what's wrong with that outcome?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link