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 -
Why are the problems with society my duty to fix? I'm already being asked to finance Boomer entitlements and their massive deficits, and now you want to take away the ability for me to enjoy the things that have given me a very happy, inadvertently MGTOW life. We all know that if a system was proposed that punished both men and women, that the punishments targeting men would get the political capital to pass first, long before anything targeting women would come into effect. Both the left and the right think men are the source of all the world's problems. My response would be a simple "buzz off". Let me do my own thing
Somehow I figured in this screed that basically calls for Making Women Subservient Again someone would zero in on male side of it.
I'm sympathetic, I hope I got that across:
I'm trying to make ways for guys to have meaning in their life. To get rewarded. Its in your blood. I'm never going to hold a gun to your head to take away what you love, but I am hoping to provide you a better offer.
I think the complaint comes down to the coup-complete aspect. If you could implement all these policies at once, it seems like a reasonable tradeoff: men and women each are given different sets of privileges and limits that offer them a fair expectation of equal happiness, for a net increase of happiness over rampant individualism (a tradeoff that creates more winners than losers, but there would still be losers).
In practice, though, the dynamics of politics and social change would bias the restrictions against men and the privileges toward women. The banning of porn and video games that make life seem a bit more bearable for losing men would happen first, and the rest would always be politically impractical.
I say this as someone who thinks that legal limitations on porn and video games would be beneficial for men, even without any offsetting privileges.
Yes, absent a serious upheaval in the vein of the Iranian revolution, incrementalism is the best/most realistic hope for getting stuff like this implemented. If you're going for one big upheaval, attacking full bore the political bloc of single women seems like the best 'all-in' approach. If you can restrict unmarried females' political power (and not just the vote, but their influence on almost every bureaucracy) then every subsequent policy proposal becomes easier to implement.
ALL THAT SAID, we'd 'only' be turning back the clock about 60 years, it seems like it would only take a single generation of incremental change to do so, if the will existed.
I wonder how much modern technology has made a return to previous settings impossible, though. Honestly, if I had to pick a policy I wouldn't ban video games, I would ban dating apps and severely restrict social media usage. That seems like it would be broadly beneficial if only by forcing more face-to-face interactions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link