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 -
Can you date folks with different politics?
I watch this stream yesterday and i find it quite interesting. Im actually kinda in this situation now, i took a girl on a date, she made it obvious she was a progressive. I often dont share my own views on these things in real life, due to how toxic these conversations can be, so i just try to listen and empathize with where the person is coming from. Though im planning to open my mouth a little more about things on the 2nd go round, as to not give a misleading representation of who i am.
Whats interesting is that the streamer in question distinct "politics" from "human rights", she gives a pretty weak example with Roe V Wade. However i think the distinction between "politics" and "human rights" is shaky to begin with. No one really agrees on what human rights even are, per her roe example, gun control (constitutional arguably, but still) being another one, & there are still societies/people that arent accepting of LGBT although thats been on the decline over some decades. My guess is she is taking this to mean, "you probably shouldnt date a nazi", which is perfectly fine. But there arent a lot of those guys around in this day and age. For myself, i dont really believe any idea is above criticism, so i dont see how having a different idea of what constitutes human rights is much different from just having different politics.
According to pew research, most people, (myself included) are fine with dating people across the political aisle {note that many people wouldnt date a trump voter, but many would date a republican, but i suspect many people might view trump as a fundamentally immoral individual, and thus that makes him distinct from just mere disagreement}. I also find that peoples political beliefs arent good measures of how moral they are in real life. There are many progressives ive seen who were cheaters, liars, lazy, ect & conservatives who were kind hearted, hard working, & loving ect (& vice versa). But i want to know what you guys think.
You can make it work, but why would you want to? Date someone who aligns with you on core values. I don't bother letting leftists into my life, and it's better for everyone that way: I don't need to deal with them, and they don't need to deal with me.
I've been with my girl for the better part of a decade. We met early twenties, and now I'm a gray-bearded, prematurely-bald thirty-something. She was more leftist when we first met, but not left-wing. Had she been, I don't think we'd have ever moved past the initial idle flirtation stage. Strong political disagreements is such an immense obstacle and even if you can tolerate each other god forbid you try to start a family.
A counterargument would be that no one will align with you on all values. At some point, you're not the other person, so you will disagree on things relating to how you deal with the world. Where is it you draw the line? It may not exactly matter. When you're living with someone and sharing everything with them, you're bound to have disagreements that can drive you crazy that you need to learn to live with.
I said "who aligns with you on core values", necessarily indicating that disagreement on non-core values is negotiable. That's the line: values important enough to you that you will not compromise on them.
It's hard to summarize a personality in a list or a handful of sentences, but a few of my non-negotiable stances in a relationship:
No hard drugs, hard defined here as "I don't care if you drink or smoke, or even go to a concert and drop molly, but no you're not becoming a meth-addicted shell, avoid the cocaine, etc"
There will never be another man involved in our relationship romantically or sexually; women are fine, and my girl and I have dabbled, but there's a one cock policy in my world.
No abuse of children, with abuse defined as excessive use of physical force, sexual contact, or prolonged verbal/mental/emotional cruelty. No, you're not abusive if you have a rough day and yell at your kid or even smack them, you are abusive if you have a 'rough day' five nights a week and your kids visibly cringe around you. There's a difference between disciplinarian and bastard.
I am entitled to sex and sexual services. This entitlement does not mean at any moment, regardless of situation -- it means that, as a rule, there's a non-negotiable expectation that a good faith effort is being made to satisfy my sexual appetite.
Communication is important. I've long learned not to even bother investing in someone who is unwilling to frankly communicate.
You don't have to love my pets but you do need to not hate them. I'm not going to start a relationship with someone that has "it's the dogs/cats/whatever or me" as an ultimatum down the line.
You have to get along with my family. Non-negotiable, no politely tolerate them but want to get out of social meetups and hang-outs ASAP, being with me long-term necessarily means being part of my family and interacting with them.
I'm in charge. I'm old-fashioned and chauvinistic like that. When I'm with a woman, I expect her to yield to me. She's allowed a voice, and I actively do want her input and opinions, but when the decision's made I expect compliance.
--
I believe that covers a broad range of core values; a woman who finds any of the above intolerable is a woman I will not even consider beginning a relationship with. There are more, but the examples should suffice.
Ah, sorry. I'll elaborate on why a pair of them are anti-leftist:
Children don't know who or what they are with any confidence. I am wholly and non-negotiably against gender affirming surgeries, medications, therapies, etc., etc., for alleged transgender children. Almost all left-coded policy toward children runs headfirst into the "mental/emotional cruelty" limit I have. The over-sexualization, drag queen story hours, Pride parades, etc.
I am White, as is my family. If you take common anti-White leftist stances, you are obviously incompatible with my family and myself; support of affirmative action, reparations, white guilt, gaslighting on racial truths, etc., is all unacceptable.
--
This means standard LGBTQ activism and the typical position on race relations in the US from the left are completely, intolerably unacceptable. And there's more, I just provided a brief finite sampling rather than exhaustively bare my soul to you. Just take my word for it: I'm firmly incompatible with leftism.
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