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 -
Liberal women steer clear of Trump supporters not because they worry "he won't be able to effectively prioritize my emotional needs in the relationship" but because they worry that the cops are going to knock on their door if they go the doctor after a miscarriage.
Being "hectored to death" is not equivalent. Being concerned about 2A restrictions might be somewhat equivalent in the sphere of rights being taken away.
Liberal women steer clear of Trump supporters not because they worry "he won't be able to effectively prioritize my emotional needs in the relationship", but because they fear their friends/peer group disapprove of their mate. Being red tribe is low status among blues. The same gender split is happening in Europe, where abortion is not a political issue.
The "Red Tribe" screen is mostly a screen for class/income/education to satisfy female hypergamy, another case where "Red Tribe" is not equivalent to Possible Republican Voter.
When looking at college/MBA/JD/PhD educated "Chads" in the States, such a modal Chad comes from a grey/blue-tribe family (where his father is likely Chuddier than his mother, if his mother has any sort of stance at all). It's typically not some rags-to-riches, or red-to-blue/grey tribe, type of character. Ivy-adjacent Lax Bros are more blue/grey than red.
College and graduate-educated men who've had varied and extensive sexual experiences tend not to have Women are Wonderful views (and in fact, tend to view women as unserious playthings) and don't automatically grant women "respect,” although they may feign to for social and professional reasons. Among boys and men across cultures, space, and time, it is instructed, internalised, and understood that respect is something to be earned, not given.
They also tend to be less worshipping of non-Asian minorities, unlike "Red Tribe" Americans who may say un-PC things about non-Asian minorities from time to time, but then wear black athlete names on their backs and cheer for said athletes. See for example, variations upon the Cam on Ingerland meme—albeit different football, different side of the pond.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an interesting inversion of the usual complaint that Males try to avoid SJWs because they worry that the cops are going to knock on their door if their partner goes to the doctor and claims they've been physically abused.
Which happens more often than the scenario you're describing.
Is one fear rational and the other irrational? If so, which is which?
Hmmmmm.
More options
Context Copy link
This does not really seem rational. Women in states like California are at absolutely no risk from any repeal of Roe. Not to say that people can’t be irrational, but women’s opposition to Trump supporters seems to have nothing to do with actual risk. I suppose if this were the case I expect women in Alabama would be much less likely to date conservative men that women California, due to the greater risk. In reality I suspect the opposite is true
More options
Context Copy link
This is hyperbole and deliberately so.
Yes, at present, there are some wacky state laws that are creating head-scratcher situations. But this will normalize. Miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other similar situations are going to be codified sooner or later by state legislatures so that women won't face weird "technically you broke the law" situations.
Want to bet? Here in Texas, we’re still having that exact problem.
There is zero incentive for the Texas legislature to make a clean definition. There is negative incentive for the AG’s office to be helpful or clear, since they score political points every time the scary word ends up in the news. Abortions are rare enough that most people aren’t directly affected by it, and get to cheerfully keep voting R.
So let’s make a bet: when do you think Texas will pass a more narrow law? When do you think they’ll leave the “wacky” regime behind in favor of that elusive common-sense situation?
Texas just clarified the standards for a medically necessary abortion. Kate Cox would not have been covered under the new standards either, but let's not pretend Texas criminalized miscarriage care(because it's not a pregnancy anymore).
Ken Paxton does not have unilateral control over the state's abortion policy, and the republicans in the legislature will likely clean up the definition now that Dade Phelan(who can't get any abortion laws passed post-Dobbs because he supports a rape exception) will not be speaker.
Do you have a link? All I found in the statutes was from 2013 or earlier. Is this an agency guideline?
I don’t think Texas criminalizes miscarriage. I said we’re still actively creating the situations @100ProofTollBooth dismisses as “head-scratchers.” Mainly in the haze around “medical necessity.” I expect that to continue so long as the Texas Republican Party can make political hay out of the issue. Phelan or not, there’s little incentive to play the careful technocrat. Not on one of the prime culture war battlegrounds.
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