site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35361 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just thought of this now after coming back to your post...

but if women are just as strong as men, why do they need protection from rapists? Why can't they just fight back?

Jarring question, but I think it reveals one example of how the disattachment from reality can have unforeseen consequences.

Reality is that which, when you stop belieiving in it, doesn't go away.

If men are naturally stronger than women, why is female-on-male rape a problem at all?

The answers to that question should give you the answers to your question as well. Further, given that the article is talking about a competitive context and not in averages, I think it's easy to see why your question misses the point a bit.

Technically, in most Western countries, it is nigh impossible for a woman to legally rape a man.

In the USA, a woman can drug you, tie you up, and force you to have sex with her, but the FBI only considers it rape if she penetrates your anus.

Similar in UK and India.

I've argued with feminists on this point, and they've used essentially the same argument as is widely used to explain female underrepresentation in STEM i.e. women are naturally just as strong and fast as men, but the patriarchy systematically discourages them from pursuing physical activities, so they never develop the relevant skills.

I don't want to Chinese robber the entire movement: most feminists I've met personally are well aware that men are stronger and faster than women for biological reasons.

Doesn't that lead one to wonder: "How did the Patriarchy ever gain power?" Are men just better at organizing? Women were too nice? But doesn't that suggest general differences between men & women.

It's an incoherent (and inconsistent with science and trivial observation) viewpoint.

I long wondered at what the progressive take on the progenitor of all extant "inequalities" is. We're humans in a Garden of Eden state before the cis white males upended everything?

White Supremacy can kind of be explained away by Europeans leveraging advantages in geography, technology, and resources into becoming the dominant civilization, then generating justifications for this post-hoc.

But patriarchy, hmmmm. Males as authority figures appears in EVERY human culture at EVERY point in history (unless the patriarchy rewrote the history books?)

It's replicated in nature, especially amongst primates.

Sexual dimorphism usually results in one sex being smaller, weaker, and "subservient" to the stronger sex, which in turn is expected to use their strength to fight off attackers/to catch prey.

Yes, men could have used their superior strength to place themselves on top of every social hierarchy and build cultures around this ideal, but it still seems firmly rooted in nature and evolutionary history, and thus can't just be explained away as a set of lucky circumstances that allowed on sex to just so happen to get a leg up on the other and then to conspire to keep it that way.

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