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 -
Is there a tangible reason why it's getting memed up?
Something of this form (easy and accessible way of signalling preparedness and baseline belonging to a more aware and professional group) seems to get memed up often enough - the bear safety thing reminds me a lot of the older "trigger discipline" fad, which was characterised by an endless torrent of people who wanted to be adjacent to American gun culture making a show of nitpicking media that depicted characters as keeping their fingers on a firearm's trigger without imminent intention to shoot. The particular choice of subject matter is probably opportunistic.
(Trigger discipline scissor question: "Which of these two situations is more dangerous? Lone woman at frat party with handgun, finger on the trigger to be ready to defend herself at any time / lone woman at frat party, unarmed". The 2A demographic will probably contend that she's more likely to hurt herself in an accidental discharge in the former than to get raped in the latter.)
I dunno man, "which gun is best for bear defense" has been a recurring shitshow thread-meme on basically every gun forum I've encountered since about the 90s -- it's not a new thing. (other than maybe some youtubers have caught on I guess?)
Bears are just a handy stand-in for 'stuff that can kill you in the woods' -- even if in reality it's not much of a threat, it's fun to think/fantasize/argue online about.
More options
Context Copy link
So will the average Democrat. I think you’re misjudging the Venn diagram of “people who think rape is common” and “people who hate and fear firearms”.
Then make it a taser or something. I would've thought firearm sentiment to be more who/whom - not that this is actually realistically going to be championed by anyone, but would a "guns for women only" policy be instinctively opposed by most blue tribers?
Take away the firearm, and you might have a scissor, but not one that touches the 2A crowd. It’s along the lines of “believe women”: the scenario is underdetermined, so you have to import either the red- or blue-tribe assumptions. Whichever you choose makes the answer obvious.
The blue-tribe assumption regarding firearms is that most uses are illegitimate. At best, mere ownership makes those illegitimate actions more likely. At worst, expressing support for firearms is announcing intent to commit a crime with one.
This is enough to justify near-total gun control. I think that preempts any instinctive opposition to “guns for women only.”
Also, women really don’t care for guns. Ownership rates are like 3x higher for men. Maybe it’s historical, maybe it’s the masculine love for machinery—we’re way more likely to own guns, let alone commit gun violence.
In the frat house case, neither tribe is going to say the girl is justified in brandishing the gun. If you want to cut on the gender angle, you need a different scenario.
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