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 -
Continuing on with The Motte's theme of the week, the Australian Federal Government has given the online dating industry a year to implement a 'voluntary' code of conduct in the face of 'online sexual violence' or presumably face regulation.
This ultimatum seems to be motivated by “An investigation by the Australian Institute of Criminology last year found three-quarters of online daters had been subject to some kind of online sexual violence in the past five years.”
Finding the referenced report 'Dating App Facilitated Sexual Violence' (their term, not mine) seems to include amongst other acts:
- Pressured the respondent to give them information about their location or their schedule
- Continued to contact the respondent even after they told them they were not interested in having a relationship with them
- Pressured the respondent verbally to perform unwanted sexual acts (eg making promises, lying, repeatedly asking or insisting etc)
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit message
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit photo or video of themselves
- Pressured the respondent to meet them in person when they did not want to
This would include dick pics or non-consensual sexually explicit language sent through a dating app, along with other mundane dating activity. The march to broaden the definition of sexual violence to include 'making women uncomfortable' continues.Australia, is usually a follower of countries like Canada and the UK when it comes to these sorts of policies, but it does occasionally become the first mover when there is the chance of getting a cheap political win (and to seem like it is doing something in the face of more serious issues such as the housing crisis).
The linked news article is kind of buried down the state news media's front page and references the federal government's
karensocial services minister who has previously worked on 'cyber safety' committees. There is a fair chance this is a complete nothing burger that will blow over and is just the govt making noises rather than actually intending to follow through, but time will tell.I might regret engaging with this but... to me these rules appear targeted towards stopping sexual harassment. Most women consider pressure after she's said "no" harassment, unsolicited dick picks harassment, etc etc. And it really does feel unsafe. Now, some uncomfortable and unwanted communication just comes with the territory of being female in the dating world. I do think redefining (most) of these things as sexual violence is bad as it weakens the definition of sexual violence. But... a lot of these behaviors really are highly upsetting to many women, and the other comments saying this is just "normal dating" have me pretty worried about what these posters think is normal behavior.
Pressuring women for contact or sex when she has said no should not be normal. Unsolicited pictures of gentitalia should not be normal. Continuing to contact a woman after she's said no should not be normal. Lying should not be normal.
I think this is more an attempt to legislate men into treating women like fellow humans than trying to control dating. The way the sexes interact is complex enough that I'm not sure it really can be effectively legislated. Ultimately, I guess I agree that this law would be bad (or at least not have the intended effects), but a culture should also never be in a position where people think legislation is the only way for women to be treated well.
What's wrong with the men these days that people think this is the only way they will behave?
I don't think there's anything wrong with "the men" these days that wasn't wrong with them 50, 100, 200 or 500 years ago. Men have always done things analogous to this prior to the existence of dating apps or smartphones or even telephones. I think we have plenty of reason to believe that men are behaving much better today than they did in the past - I'm sure the Australian statistics for sexual assault over the last hundred years would bear that out. [EDIT: not over the last thirty years, per /u/AshLael. Would still like to see a chart of the last hundred years.]
I don't think the people behind this bill have exhausted every possible course of action to attempt to remedy this problem and are now throwing up their hands in defeat and trying to legislate the problem out of existence. I think these people are petty authoritarians who want the state to intervene and control every facet of human behaviour. I think trying to legislate the problem out of existence was a first resort for them, not a last resort.
Twenty years ago we would have said that a man who's overly pushy and bad at reading signals needs to learn a bit of empathy and improve his social skills - not locked up. From a rehabilitative perspective, I have a hard time believing that spending a few months in jail for the crime of sending a few rude texts would make a man more respectful towards women.
Can we PLEASE try to stay SLIGHTLY connected to reality here?
No one is trying to
No legislation has been proposed, no legislation is being drafted.
Likewise, there is absolutely no prospect of any man
What has happened is dating apps have been asked to write a code of conduct for themselves. This does not involve any legislation, it does not involve any penalties, and it CERTAINLY does not involve any new criminal offences applied to users.
This is an example of the government laundering legislation through private entities by pressuring the private entities that if they don't obey, they will be faced with legislation. If they do obey, then the government can claim to have nothing to do with it because it's "just private entities, surely they can do whatever they want".
That may or may not be so, and it still means nobody is going to jail for suggesting a date.
Are you sure? Because I can easily see this "voluntary" code including mandatory reporting to the government, so after Mr. short-pasty-and-ugly gets shot down (by different women) for the thirteenth time, he ends up facing cyberstalking charges.
'I can easily see' is the very weakest phrasing known to God and man alike. Is that all you've got?
I don't have a crystal ball. I don't even have the text of the demand sent from the government to the dating sites. But I am certain that if this comes to pass, those who say this won't happen now will be at the forefront of saying the defendant deserves it then.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link