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 don’t think people are fully grasping what is happening here.
The Australian government is flirting with making it illegal to ask someone on a date.
“Pressuring the respondent to give them information about their location or their schedule.”
“Pressuring the respondent to meet them in person when they did not want to.”
This is what asking someone on a date is. You don’t know if they want to until you ask.
Some have speculated in these very comments that destroying dating apps is good actually, because then people will start meeting each other and going on dates somewhere else (where exactly this “somewhere else” would be is left unspecified). This is a folly. The kind of government that bans dating apps for allowing and facilitating people to ask each other out is the kind of government which will ban in-person dating scenes too. Think that’s too extreme? This is Australia we’re talking about. I’m totally on Kulak’s side if the Australian government goes through with this. These inhuman totalitarians need to be taken out by any means necessary.
This is actually pretty interesting. Making it so only guys with social capital get to date. I just don't like the State doing it.
More options
Context Copy link
No, the government is not making it illegal to ask someone on a date. No, they are not flirting with doing so.
"How about you guys self-regulate so we don't have to get involved?" is the exact same thing our governments have done with television since forever. Guess what? It didn't lead to TV being banned.
The dating apps will put together a voluntary Code of Conduct that mostly says they need to do the things they're already doing, maybe with a bit less tolerance for unsolicited dick pics, and life will go on. No legislation will be drafted, introduced, or passed.
You know what would happen if the government did make it illegal to ask someone on a date? That government would become very unpopular. So they won't do it.
Edit: Also, we already had a regime change since that Kulak post you've linked to. So who are you proposing to replace the current lot of "inhuman totalitarians" with? Back to the last bunch?
This seems to be a recurring problem. We might have to write a new constitution, Douglas MacArthur style.
Do you think there's any chance at all that maybe invading another country, overthrowing a democratically elected, popular government, and forcibly imposing a new constitution is perhaps a slight overraction to Tinder being asked (with no actual penalty attached) to follow rules that it gets to write for itself?
More options
Context Copy link
You think Akihito wants a new imperial possession?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have to agree with this- the ‘most people meet in person’ ship has sailed, been captured by privateers, and is at this point taking on water quite rapidly after steering into an iceberg. It’s not coming back without a conscious effort to facilitate it, probably by third parties to the ones that would be actually getting dates.
More options
Context Copy link
...Isn't this making it illegal to ask a second time after receiving a non-affirmative response the first time?
It seems to me that the above would be a move toward more legible dating rules, and that a lot of the awfulness of the current situation comes from a lack of legibility. It might actually be an improvement, if there's common knowledge between men and women that if the woman gives a non-affirmative, that connection is irrevocably burned.
No, it makes it even less legible. Is this "pressure" or is it playful banter that both parties are enjoying:
Him: "Let's have our first date at XYZ Mini Golf."
Her: "No way, I hate Mini Golf. And if that's your idea of a good first date then you aren't getting a date at all."
Him: "You're just saying that cause you're scared you'll lose."
Her: "Ugh. Fine. But I'm only agreeing because you're being such an asshole about it."
Yes.
Russell conjugations all the way down: He pressured her; you convinced her; I charmed her.
Regardless of the particular example and whether it be arranging the first date, having sex for the first time, or anything in between, the choice of verb to describe the same words and actions from a man can be determined and redetermined retroactively by a woman based on how she feels about the man at the time of the retroactive (re-)determination.
Women generally don't like to take ownership of their actions in the dating/courtship process. This kind of ambiguity, plausible deniability, and ret-conning of their Lived Experience is a feature, not a bug, and helps their ability to say "omg it just like happened" and protect their sense of Wonderfulness.
I think it's a feature, not a bug, in more ways than you're giving it credit for. Saying stuff that makes the other person slightly uncomfortable is an important component of flirting for both sexes. It's a way of testing the other person a little to see how they perform.
It's similar to how a job interviewer might ask "what are your three greatest weaknesses?" That's a completely batshit insane thing to ask in the context of a normal conversation, but it's typical in an interview. The point is to see how the other person responds to an uncomfortable question - can they stay focused and give a socially appropriate response instead of getting flustered?
A woman saying "I hate your first date idea" is basically the same thing. It's (often) not a literal statement. It's about seeing the quality of the response from the other person and communicating that she isn't desperate for a date. "You're scared you'll lose" is basically the same thing. It's a little jab back designed to get a reaction and communicate a certain sense of aloofness. It's a delicate dance because you have to push a little but not push too much, and everyone will screw it up at some point given a long enough timeframe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's cringe. I'd be leaving her on read after that first response. I wouldn't be enjoying this "playful banter" and it would be a pressure for me to reply.
I mean that's kind of my point. In text form this exchange can be read many different ways by different people.
If you imagine it as a verbal conversation where both parties statements are dripping with playful sarcasm, then it's clear they're flirting. If you imagine it as a verbal conversation where both parties are being dead serious, then they're both being pieces of shit to each other. It's impossible to create a neutral set of rules to decide which is which, especially when it's happening via text.
Yep. And you can also have WILDLY different cultural norms. I knew a West Virginia redneck whose mom was fat and liked it cold. Redneck preferred it warm. He'd tell his mom 'come on ya walrus it's fucking cold in here'.
He and his mom got along well. Mom's a nurse, he made good and went to Harvard.
More options
Context Copy link
You get it. And the guys who have left her on read without responding have, perhaps, saved their own pride, but have also failed the shit test as much as the guys who become bruised and immediately apologize and make a list of other possible fun date ideas. Or worse: Ask her what fun thing she wants to do.
I think considering the woman's perspective is instructive, and as much as straight women generally don't understand what courtship (that's my chosen word, feel free to substitute your own) is like for straight men, men as well I think can't get their head around what it must be like for women. Namely to inhabit a world where one has a) readily available sex basically whenever one wants it, though not without possibly considerable social, emotional, and yes, possibly physical cost 2) a body that can get pregnant due to said sex, pregnancy of course being much different than the flu, or other physical ailment and d) the knowledge that, after the sex and depending upon how early it has been had, how much the man has had to invest to get it (because women are the figurative seller here), and how satisfying it was-- the man may very likely lose any long-term interest, starting you again jarringly quickly back at the beginning with a new prince charmless.
What must it be like for a girl to be treated as if she is in possession of a prize worth all of Africa's ivory and Asia's gold, then, when the post-coital tissue comes out, realize she isn't? The feeling of having been conned must be substantial.
Of course often some spark is kindled, the guy is too busy counting his lucky stars to show or feel disinterest, and a relationship may blossom into something long-lasting, if not quite the place that was promised. Or perhaps something something true love, if saying this unironically will not get me Motte-banned.
The dating dance, once I learned it (far later than would have really benefited me but not so late as to not benefit me at all) I always found exhilarating. Which is not to say I was some sort of record holder. I wasn't and am not. Having written that I also fully understand the frustrations involved, particularly when obsessiveness masquerading as love enters the fray.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, inclined to agree that without specificity as to what actually crosses the line, this rule is ripe for malign interpretation.
And, in this particular area of human interaction, I don't think it's POSSIBLE to define the line with specificity.
There's acts that clearly qualify and cross a line, and then there's a huge gray area that depends almost entirely on how the recipient interprets the meaning of the sender.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It never will be, though, because Chad will ignore the rules and women won't call him on it. So it just becomes another test for men, with high stakes if he loses.
Worse: Not even Chad is immune when The Rules are applied capriciously and retrospectively at women's whim. In addition to it being another test for men in general with high stakes if a given man fails.
That too is a feature: some level of [assholery - power/Chadliness] gets you cancelled.
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