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 -
By all accounts Russell brand is a scum bag whether he technically committed rape or the women technically consented. But, and here’s the but, powerful parliamentary chairwomen do not need to be personally intervening to see justice served unless he’s not being charged with the crime(s) of which he stands accused due to corruption/political interference/whatever.
He’s a garden variety scumbag who, guilty or not, I wouldn’t allow to date my daughter. He should face legal penalties in a court of law and the government shouldn’t be pressuring extrajudicial sanctions onto him.
It's unsurprising the government is doing it, but it's also very much against the values it's supposed to defend. Ofc it makes perfect sense how it behaves, a 'democratic' government is more often than not a government by the bureaucracy for the bureaucracy, wearing 'democracy' as a skin suit.
That aside: a rather hilarious detail surfaced on twitter that sums up what's wrong with women these days.
/images/16952976384799938.webp
I distrusted the guy from the get-go based on vibes. (my vibe module says "wannabe cult leader, drop a grenade on him from a drone). Learning he was pushing OWS style socialism nonsense cca 2008 and is now on completely another bandwagon and that he was also dating 16 year olds at age.. 31 is unsurprising.
Yeah, the about-face here is just so exactly on the nose of the sort of thing that leaves me utterly repulsed by the impoverished language people have to discuss sexual malfeasance. Pretty much any guy could immediately tell you that Brand was going to be a lascivious womanizer, this is completely obvious from his physiognomy and demeanor, to the point where he's cast accordingly in movies. But we live in a time where the prevailing attitudes are that you can't judge people based on such surface-level appearances and you definitely can't judge any sex that people say is consensual, what whaddya whaddya. Upon hearing that he's exactly the guy that I would have expected, my sympathy for the "victims" is substantially dampened, while the people that would have told me that you can't judge now want him cast as a vicious rapist rather than just the exploitive perv that he always obviously was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link