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 -
After recovering from yesterday's hangover I've got a bit more to say about this.
I suspect that one of the major drives behind this is the push to get more resources for addressing domestic/sexual violence treatment in society. The author of the paper has written other papers on domestic violence and seems to be undertaking a PhD on the subject. I've also tracked down her discussion of her findings at a criminology conference. She seems to wish to move towards de-anonymization (identity verification via 'government ids') and the ability to report perpetrators of DAFSV on the apps to the police which would clearly have a chilling effect on the use of the platform based on the nebulous definitions above.
When asked why LGBT+ people experienced higher rates of abuse under the definition she admits that 'they were perhaps using the apps differently' than heterosexuals and speculates that they were perhaps getting 'targeted because of their sexual identity by catfishing' (which I find incredibly doubtful).
Finally when asked whether the survey respondents might self select because of their attitudes towards sexual violence, she admits that that might be the case as they need to inform potential respondents what the survey is about. I find this last point very interesting because besides the 'thumb on the scale' with loose definitions of violence, it seems that the large numbers of positives could be due to a polluted sample. It just reinforces my belief that this is a motivated effort to get resources/attention for the domestic/sexual violence agenda.
More options
Context Copy link