site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   30530 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is there something bad or wrong about the fact she could marry a normal guy?

Of course there is. In essence she would be cheating the social contract. She would be tricking some poor sap into bailing her out of the socially agreed upon consequences of her actions. It benefits everyone to enforce harsh social penalties on promiscuous women and this would be undermining that valuable rule.

the socially agreed upon consequences

Some people fantasize that such consensus views exist. They then act cheated when someone mitigates or entirely avoids negative consequences. As though cosmic justice has been subverted.

Because those used to exist when we had a functional society, and people can't resign themselves to believe that we live in a free for all hellscape with no rules where selling your body online is a consequence free way to bypass decades of toil.

People facing up to the reality of what that means would look a lot more radical than people whining about whores on X. Historically speaking.

People facing up to the reality of what that means would look a lot more radical than people whining about whores on X. Historically speaking.

What sort of historical examples do you have in mind here?

Quite literally any pre-modern understanding of your Abrahamic religion of choice. Ask your local Muslim cleric how he feels this behavior should be condemned if you want a taste of what that means.

People would like to think that Sharia and other such traditions are some completely unnecessary barbarism when really it's a series of solutions to real problems that became obsolete when the problems stopped occurring. Reintroduce the problem and you'll reintroduce the need for solutions.

I mean, aren't there plenty of old stories about sluts getting away with it and becoming respected members of the community? The biblical prostitute Rahab got picked up as a model of "hospitality, mercy, faith, patience and repentance."

While helping the Israelites deal with their enemies is a good way to "earn" her redemption, that still sets a precedent that loose women can become part of the common fold.

There sure are, but they're all within the context of a culture that heavily shuns the behavior in the first place.

Jesus' treatment of Magdalene isn't meant to to suggest that whoring is without consequence, but rather that divine mercy is available even to such people. You still have to bear the consequences of sin in this world.

Socially agreed upon by who? I certainly don't agree. What is the benefit to me of this woman having difficulty finding a husband?

Even if the poor sap is okay with it, many men are quite dissatisfied with taking a high bc woman as a wife. They may do it anyway because they want a wife badly enough. Therefore, these men would benefit from a high bc being disincentivized.

Many men - including many of these men who desire chastity in mates - are quite dissatisfied if they cannot get laid regularly or at least rack up a reasonable body count for themselves in their youth.

"If you want to marry a virgin, you should leave a few of them around!"

You can make this argument about anything. Many men would prefer an educated wife, therefore they would benefit from society shaming women who choose not to pursue an education. Does that mean women who do not pursue an education are "cheating the social contract?"

Ok. Then those men are free to not to marry a woman who has had a lot of partners. I am confident there are a lot of normal guys who do not care how many previous partners their partner has had.

While I am confident that having had 3 previous partners instead of two does not prevent a woman from settling down, a triple digit body count is a difference of sufficient degree to constitute a difference in kind.

A hasty google disagrees with you

Although I will admit this is an internet survey with n of 188. So, probably not super robust findings.

Edit 1

More evidence saying men do penalize past promiscuity, this time using prostitutes.

This one is interesting because of their proxy mechanism.

I'm gonna need some help. What's the chain from "there's a negative correlation between time as a prostitute and earnings among Indonesian prostitutes" to "there are not a lot of normal guys who would marry Lily Phillips."

I am confident there are a lot of normal guys who do not care how many previous partners their partner has had.

That's what you said.

Both of my sources cast quite a bit of doubt on your assertion.

Ok, feel free to rephrase my previous comment. Draw me the line from Indonesian prostitute earnings to men caring about their partner's body count.

No.

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