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 -
They had to throw in "often-gendered", didn't they? Guys get doxxed as much, maybe more, than women. If doxxing is wrong - and I think there are very few cases where it is appropriate - it doesn't become even worser if the doxxed person is female/female presenting/non binary/genderfluid/anything not cis male.
Hmm, if we take as granted that doxxing increases the risk of some physical altercation taking place (even if by some tiny percent) and if we take as granted that the average woman is physically weaker than the average man, then I think it is probably true that doxxing poses more of a physical risk to women than men. Not necessarily by much of course as I imagine most doxxing doesn't actually lead to anything like being physically stalked.
I think doxxing Amouranth would probably put her at more risk then doxxing Jacksepticeye for example.
If we take all of those things for granted, then we have to take for granted that trans women do not belong in women's sports / prisons / bathrooms / etc., and we have to wonder why those things are not loudly shouted from the rooftops by NYT reporters.
On the other hand, if we don't take for granted, but check the relevant statistics, and it turns out that women are far less likely to be victims of violent crime, then your argument falls flat on it's face.
of random violent crime yes. But that's not the specific thing we are talking about here. Do you think that a random online woman and a random online man are equally likely to be sought out by a bad actor?
You can't use general crime statistics against a specific scenario. For obvious reasons.
My objection to the point raised was narrow for a reason, I am not commenting on general levels of violence or whether this scenario would be portrayed accurately with trans people et al. So don't read into my point more than is actually there.
If I show that women are less likely to be the victims of non-random violent crime as well, will you concede, or move the goalposts again?
If you can show that women are less likely to be at risk from being doxxed due to a mixture of physical attributes and due to the nature of online gender mixtures and behaviours then sure. As that was my ACTUAL claim.
Remember we are encouraged to be specific here. So do me the courtesy of addressing my actual specific argument not something else please.
I may be wrong, it's certainly happened before! But at least address my claim not some other thing you are interested in debunking.
The logic of the argument is faulty. The physical attributes do not make doxxing more physically dangerous for women, for the same for the same reason they don't make any other encounter more physically dangerous for women. If you want to make the claim that doxxing is some super special exception that results in more violence for women, you need to actually back that claim up with something.
No we're not. You tactic of deliberately misinterpreting the rules in order to win an argument is as bizarre as it is ineffective. Go ahead and report me, if you disagree.
I did, but you're moving the goal posts. If you're making a claim, it is enough to point out that it's logic is faulty. You do not get to demand that someone brings evidence against an ultra-specific scenario, particularly when you've brought none yourself.
I didn't say it resulted in more violence, i said it could be riskier in part due to them being weaker.
Presumably you would agree that all else being equal if a woman and a man get in a physical altercation, the woman is at greater risk of harm? Not due to any moral differences, but simple biology.
Risk includes both the likelihood of something happening and how bad the outcomes are likely to be.
The other part of my argument is that due to the gendered ratio of the internet, it is more likely for a doxxed woman to have someone decide to actually find them than for a man. I think that is true, but perhaps only slightly.
However even if that chance is entirely 50/50 the first part of my argument would still mean women are at greater risk because they are weaker.
If violence doesn't enter the picture, I fail to see how it's in any way riskier.
No, I won't, for precisely the reason you state below.
And if I show you that women tend to suffer less physical harm in the event that they do get into a physical altercation, will you concede that your argument is wrong, or will you shift the goal posts yet again?
Based on what?
Fortunately for me, both parts of your argument are either unbacked by any evidence, or completely wrong.
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