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 -
My in laws are out of their damned minds. I saw a support thread for the subreddit in the region I moved away from. There was a thread where ladies were trying to find places to get their tubes tied.
I moved to a much more culturally tolerable area almost 4 years ago now. It's improved my quality of life by magnitudes. I highly recommend it. The private school we send our daughter to still has a lot of far lefties, because private school. But most people we run into, or other parents we meet at the park, are very culturally aligned with us.
I don't know how to deprogram people who uncritically believe every Democrat hoax from the last 8 years. They're in too deep at this point. My FIL was compulsively going off about how all the corporatist and oligarchs won, totally ignorant to the fact that Harris was the big money candidate with the most corporations and oligarchs behind her.
Ditto on the 'moved out of a blue bubble' to a mixed area. It's remarkable how much chiller and more functional everything seems to be. I was just at my kid's Veteran's day pageant. Never once in my older child's school career (in Oak Park, IL) did they ever do anything Veteran related I ever knew about.
Anyway...that's the way Amerca works best: conservatives and liberals in neighborly competition trying to make difficult things work. I couldn't see it from within the Blue Bubble of Chicago.
More options
Context Copy link
There is this infamous evolutionary just-so story from the manosphere days of yore titled War Brides. It is almost a 100% conjecture and goes like this:
Preposterous, right? And yet I cannot prevent me from thinking about this whenever I read another hysterical article about female Western journalists trying to make the 4b movement (essentially a Lysistrata-style boycott on sex and child bearing) happen in the West. Add to that a couple of social media posts about "not even my very progressive husband getting any for a long time" and a haphazard conclusion presents itself:
In the face of defeat, which woman in her right mind would mate with a member of the losing tribe?
From that NPR link on 4b:
Koreans didn't have a word for sex until the West brought them one?!
I think it just doesn't sound right otherwise. To match with the other terms, they need something that is short and not ambiguous. The standard term for the act of sex (sexual relations) is three syllables. They could shorten it to two, but then it would just mean "relationship".
There are also taboos about talking about sex, where even the common euphemisms and clinical terms are not uttered much in public. I guess using the English loanword is the most socially acceptable way to specify "act of sex" in print.
Also radfems seem to get their craziest ideas from their academic connections to the anglosphere, so they use loanwords more than the general public.
More options
Context Copy link
Don't know how it happened in Korea, but a lot European countries ended up borrowing it too. The native word for sex often feels (extremely) vulgar, and the non-vulgar alternatives are either vague euphemisms, clinical multi-word phrases or compound words in languages like German. "Sex" by comparison is pretty handy - short and neutral.
Also seems to be a thing in Japan, if some media is to be taken as representative.
Interestingly (to me) another euphemism for sex is etchi or エッチ which is itself the pronunciation of the letter H, which in turn is a representation of the romanization of the word 変態 (hentai or perversion).
The term's arduous journey softens the tone from the original hentai meaning--エッチ really just is a noun for sexual intercourse --but it's one of those weird words in Japanese.
There is a term 性行為 or sēkoi which means sex, but it's a clinical term (think "intercourse"). Sēi means sex or gender, koi means "deed" or "behavior."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Given that, which man in his right mind would remain a member of the losing tribe, if he had the option of converting? The bulk of the Afghan National Army could figure out the answer to that one, why not Western men?
If Trump keeps on winning so much that his fans become tired of winning AND if men living in larger cities can keep prestige employment while not swearing fealty to Woke Inc., it's reasonable to assume that we will see an even larger shift in the political realignment of men than the one we observe now.
What has Trump actually won, really? What makes people — on both sides — think he's going to be any more "in charge" of the executive branch than Biden currently is?
I don't think he has. He has the track record of an unusually ineffective administrator.
But this is about perception and status. It's about who won the popularity contest, not about who's in charge of the bureau of boringness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They can borrow a page from Islam, and engage in taqiyya.
You say that as if it isn't already widespread practice.
(lays finger alongside nose)
Thanks for the reminder to rewatch The Sting.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Take that, conservatives?
I do not know why there’s a progressive idea that pro-life laws exist to boost the white fertility rate by controlling women(no reasonable person thinks that they do this- pro-life advocates are well aware of the color of the women getting abortions). But it seems like they literally actually believe this?
Of course being a sterile woman is not a good idea if the based patriarchy actually comes about.
I think some of this is a failure of theory of mind. I mean, I've seen plenty of examples, across both political and cultural divides, of people going "those people can't possibly believe what they say is their reason for doing this thing, so I need to figure out what their actual reason is." Nobody could actually believe a fetus is a human life, so therefore the pro-lifers must have some other, real reason for wanting to ban abortion, therefore…
Or an exchange about Hispanic votes in the election, which went something like:
Or the Native woman I stood in line behind at the welfare office about a decade ago and the half of her cellphone conversation I overheard, about her brother's legal trouble and about how, even if white people believe plenty of stuff, not even they could actually believe the theory upon which her brother was being charged, and that clearly they're just pretending so as to add further humiliation when locking up innocent Native men.
I mean, we can observe pro-lifers and find that many of them seem to value "enforced monogamy" a lot, but "lives for the sake of lives" not so much, and infer their actual motivation for banning abortion from that.
Based on how pro-lifers talk, I can see clearly how pro-choicers believe the conservatives don't care about the babies, they just want them to "take responsibility" and "not have casual sex".
Sure, it's not just "lives for the sake of lives", the child's innocence of any wrongdoing also enters the picture. Responsibility and the wisdom of having casual sex is mostly orthogonal to this issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, calling them Latinx also didn’t help the democrats. I’m really not surprised that someone who used that term unironically has no theory of mind of Hispanics(or anyone else- ‘we’re inventing a new and difficult to pronounce term for you because you might be transgender’ is, uh, not a way to appeal to blue collar people. And yes, that -nks sound is quite difficult for a native Spanish speaker to pronounce, just like those Russian and German consonant clusters are to Americans.)
The native woman also doesn’t shock me; people tend to take personal tragedies as so obviously unjust that they’re evidence of malice from whoever imposed them.
It’s the whole white nationalist plot to enslave women that seems strange to believe. I can get my head around a few people in ivory towers believing unevidenced things that can plausibly be connected to some real rhetoric(there are people who will cite demographic change as a reason to oppose immigration, and great replacement theory is really a thing that republicans believe). But white nationalists tend to be mostly aware that the women seeking abortions are fairly black- and everyone else is too. It just seems strange.
In that example, the thing that was so stupid not even white people could believe it? Well, she said things like "they'd been kissing," "she went into his bedroom," and that "everyone knows what happens after that" and that no human being on Earth could possibly believe a woman gets to "back out" once she's gone that far with a man, so charging him with sexual assault is just the White Man dunking on another innocent Native with a patently bogus "crime."
That doesn't actually fit my experience. The times I've talked IRL to left-wingers of my acquaintance, they've been rather ignorant of the racial breakdown of abortion in America, and rather surprised when I've introduced them to the stats.
Really not difficult to believe someone could think the current conception of consent is fantastical and ridiculous. I 100% believe that woman had the right to back out at the last minute, but that right was granted by man, not nature. Some primitives finding it shocking isn’t a surprise, especially when they’re closely related to the man in trouble for it.
Hmm. You seem to know more progressives than I do, although it seems like common knowledge.
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
Yeah, the Republican women in my life are having the same sort of confused reaction, going “wait, they think that them choosing not to have unprotected sex is some kind of strike against the pro-life movement?”
But the framing is that the point behind pro-life advocacy is the goal of controlling and impregnating women. Fuentes and the teenage boys doing teenage boy things aren’t helping. But the fact that there’s a significant part of the population that’s going “wow, Fuentes is really showing us what the right is really like” instead of realizing he’s a shock jock provocateur who’s intentionally trying to troll indicates just how ingrained this interpretation is on the left.
The challenge with striking against the pro-life movement is it's unclear what exactly the pro-life movement wants. Do they want more children or fewer?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link