site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   18392 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 29, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jumping right in with something that may get me in trouble, who knows?

First, obligatory disclaimers. This is a serious question. I am not trying to "boo, outgroup". I don't think Trump is an innocent little baa-lamb, okay? Let's just get all the "but of course he did it, he's the type of guy, grab 'em by the pussy" stuff out of the way. "Reade is crazy, she's a Russian asset, it was all lies". Ignore all that. Try, as far as you can, to put the background and any opinions you have on X versus Y out of your mind. Just go by the statements of what was accused and alleged and no interpretation "well of course A is the type to do this so B is telling the truth but C is not the type so D is lying".

On the bare facts of the allegation, do you think E. Jean Carroll is telling the truth? Do you think it happened as she said it happened, do you think the verdict was correct? And if you believe her, why don't you believe Tara Reade? Neither have independent witnesses. Both allege sexual assault with digital penetration (at least, so far as I understand, Carroll did at first then said he penetrated her with his penis). Both allege it happened in a secluded area. Why does Carroll get an $83 million payout for Trump saying she's a liar while Reade - doesn't?

(1) E. Jean Carroll's account (from The Cut):

So now I will tell you what happened:

The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.

I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.

The whole episode lasts no more than three minutes. I do not believe he ejaculates. I don’t remember if any person or attendant is now in the lingerie department. I don’t remember if I run for the elevator or if I take the slow ride down on the escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth Avenue.

(2) Tara Reade's account (from Current Affairs):

And then it wasn’t long after that, that the scheduler called me in and said, I want you to take this to Joe. He wants you to bring it, hurry. And I said, okay. And it was a gym bag. She called it an athletic bag. She said he was down towards the Capitol and “he’ll meet you.” And so I went down and he was at first talking to someone, I could see him at a distance and then they went away. And then, we were in like the side area. And he just said, Hey, come here, Tara. And then I handed him the thing and he greeted me, he remembered my name. And it was the strangest thing. There was no like exchange really. He just had me up against the wall. I was wearing a shirt and a skirt but I wasn’t wearing stockings. It was kind of a hot day. And I was wearing heels and I remember my legs had been hurting from the marble of the Capitol, walking on it. So I remember that kind of stuff. I remember it was kind of an unusually warm day. And I remember he just had me up against the wall and the wall was cold. It happened all at once. The gym bag, I don’t know where it went. I handed it to him. It was gone and then his hands were on me and underneath my clothes. And then he went down my skirt, but then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers. And he was kissing me at the same time and he was saying something to me. He said several things, I can’t remember everything he said. I remember a couple of things. I remember him saying first before, like as he was doing it, “do you want to go somewhere else?” And then him saying to me when I pulled away, when he got finished doing what he was doing and I pulled back and he said, “come on man, I heard you liked me.” And it’s that phrase [that] stayed with me because I kept thinking what I might’ve said [to make him think that]. And I can’t remember exactly, if he said “I thought,” or “I heard,” but it’s like he implied I had done this.

Again, no 'afterwards we learned this or we heard that', just judge the two accounts on what is said here and which you find credible, if either, or both, or none. If it's "could have happened but I don't know" or "did happen based on what's here" or "never happened". But base that opinion on what you read here of both allegations, not any political swirling around in the past or present.

Maybe I need to update my priors in light of many recent events but I have a hard time believing someone would completely make up an encounter versus exaggerate. I’ve read enough PUA material and know enough high body count guys that I feel like I know how they think.

A lot of girls do fail to give consent when perfectly willing and I think a lot of playboys have internalized that and act with some aggression. My guess is Trump did pursue her for a fling and was likely aggressive and probably handsy.

My probabilities

90% an encounter occurred between her and Trump

30% he crossed a line. Which I would say is digital penetration

<10% he raped her in the common usage sense. And I’m like closer to <1% especially since it’s in a semi-public space

I’m under no illusion Trump is some kind of Saint. The jury award is silly and is a prime example of why we have statute of limitations. I wouldn’t be shocked if Trump did it and has zero recollection of it.

I’ve read enough PUA material and know enough high body count guys that I feel like I know how they think.

Let's remember that there is online PUA (un)reality and actual physical world PUA/high body count guy reality.

Online PUAs go hard into things like "last minute resistance" and "anti-slut defense." These are absolutely rapey and awful. And they're pretty much theoretical rationalizations and analysis created by soy boys LARPing as "PUAs" (any online subculture that has lots of acronyms is often populated by the same basic template nerds with various extra skins and other DLC attached.)

Actual, real life "PUA" types experience consent in absolutely black and white scenarios like "has she leaned over and asked me to f**k her? Is she actively unfastening my belt? Has she already gone ahead and leaned in for the kiss herself?" Real life PUAs look at a grey zone not just as a potential risk, but as a failure at the application of their skills. The idea isn't to jump her bones as she is perhaps just beginning to imagine an encounter, but to push the pre-physical seduction to such an extent that she is actively soliciting it in no uncertain terms - and will look back on it with genuine happiness. The parallel between real world PUA stuff and corporate sales is undeniable; don't sell them, make them want to buy the thing so bad they're shoving money at you. And make them happy to see you when you come back for a second time around (am I talking about sales or sex here .... I don't even know anymore).

Real life seduction / PUA / whatever you want to call it is about the challenge of generating real and powerful desire. It's not about weaseling into a grey area to be the sex-bandito who's in and out in a flash.

This is also why lots of (again, "real") PUAs leave that subculture - they want to level up to the next stage of generating real, powerful, and enduring desire over a long term relationship.

Because that is incredibly hard. And supremely worthwhile.

Online PUAs go hard into things like "last minute resistance" and "anti-slut defense." These are absolutely rapey and awful. And they're pretty much theoretical rationalizations and analysis created by soy boys LARPing as "PUAs" (any online subculture that has lots of acronyms is often populated by the same basic template nerds with various extra skins and other DLC attached.)

Meh. Such statements are needlessly generalizing and biased in my view. As far as I can tell, PUA recommendations/techniques mostly discussed LMR and ASD specifically in the context of one-night stands in clubs. Then again, such venues lost most of their relevance in the post-COVID digital age anyway.

I spent time in the real life PUA community during it's heyday (eg regular lair meetups in different cities). While there are PUA's who act in the manner you've outlined, there are also absolutely PUA's who will aggressively try to push through last minute resistance. I know because I've heard them brag about it multiple times. I would not even be able to say the majority had graduated to the level of puissance you've described above.

Many were unskilled/had no idea what they were doing, or were skilled, but actually bad apples in the aggressive 'push through resistance' sense. I'd say 30% were both skilled at their craft and acting in good faith in the manner you describe above. I'd say 30% were just assholes using their powers (or lack thereof) for evil. At least 50% of guys were badly/untrained. There's a venn diagram with 4 circles between skilled/unskilled and kind/selfish players.

The bad guys exist. I don't mean to tar the PUA community with the same brush because the bad apples were still in the minority, and I knew that most guys just wanted to eventually get a girlfriend rather than go for a highscore on bodycount. But sights like the accuser stories above weren't unknown in the nightclubs (eg physically aggressive, unwanted advance). I'm not saying that's rape and deserves an $80 million payout, but it is what it is.

Actual, real life "PUA" types experience consent in absolutely black and white scenarios like "has she leaned over and asked me to f**k her? Is she actively unfastening my belt? Has she already gone ahead and leaned in for the kiss herself?"

Oh come on, there are plenty of real life promiscuous men who believe in the same stuff as your Internet PUAs, even if they don’t know the cringe terminology for it.

There are some men for whom seduction is about seduction, and for whom anything less than absolute enthusiasm would be unattractive and a turn-off, but there are many others who just want they dick wet, if you will.

Sure, I think all straight men on some level want women to find them attractive, but this isn’t a necessary precondition to want to fuck them, or no men would pay for it.

Sure, I think all straight men on some level want women to find them attractive, but this isn’t a necessary precondition to want to fuck them, or no men would pay for it.

That's a good point, which my post failed to consider.

Oh come on, there are plenty of real life promiscuous men who believe in the same stuff as your Internet PUAs, even if they don’t know the cringe terminology for it.

Sorry, but I have to "No True Scotsman" you on this one. Agree totally that there are a ton of guys with various levels of game that run around doing this shit. I tried, in my previous post, to call out the fact they aren't actually committed to developing the deeper skills and mindsets of "seduction" (aside: I don't like either the term PUA or seduction, but I can't think of a better one thats in common usage). To mix up some metaphors - knowing a few military phrases and having gone to one or two tactical training events doesn't make you a SEAL.

Just remember I apologized first before deploying my rhetorical ninja roll.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats