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 -
I care about male athletes in women's sports, actually. I think allowing male athletes to compete in women's sports is an outrage.
As to your first paragraph, I agree with the general thrust of it. I conceive of immigration as a privilege, not a right. When a country has agreed to host you at its pleasure, you have a responsibility not to abuse that privilege and to treat the host country and its residents with utmost respect. When I heard about the Syrian refugees groping women on the streets of Germany in 2016, my first thought was "how ungrateful". While we might be exasperated or furious with how certain of our fellow native-born citizens behave, we're stuck with them - it's not like we can just deport the repeat offenders, much as we might like to.
All that being said, I think there's an important distinction to be made. It's one thing to get outraged when an Irishman mistreats women, and getting especially outraged when an immigrant does so. That I can get behind. What I can't get behind is "being outraged when an immigrant mistreats women, and turning a blind eye when an Irishman you admire does so".
It's true, sadly. As I say, a large chunk of people who are opposed to immigration are just doing the "women's safety" bit as a fig leaf to cover up their real objections. And conversely, many social progressives have decided that immigrants commit crimes at the same rate as native-born Irish citizens; and if they commit crimes at higher rates than native-born Irish people, then that's Irish people's fault for being so racist and exclusive that immigrants feel like they have no choice but to commit crimes and sexually assault women; and whatever studies I might provide to show that this is untrue will be dismissed because the authors are biased (because if they weren't biased, their study would have come up with the "correct" answer, but it didn't, so it's biased)...
Does victim selection play a role in the perceived public response?
Frequently the difference is women out on her run attacked at random opportunity vs liquored or drugged up good time girl who changes her mind or realizes too late the sort of rake she's followed to his room.
While recognizing this distinction is often seen a victim blaming, victims are often careless with their own safety.
I am willing and able to decouple in my head "it was despicable of that man to take advantage of you when you were in that state" from "it was careless of you to get drunk and go home with such an obviously shitty person", and I think this is a skill that everyone should master.
Many people decouple this way.
Do you also decouple when instead of being the victim of another person, they're the victim of an animal, tree, swimming pool, trampoline or hotel balcony?
Being drunk or drugged in an unsafe environment is inviting unnecessary risk in a way that getting your steps in on a local walking path should not. Should the culture not recognize this difference and treat the individuals in these situations differently as a result?
Of course, I am markedly more sympathetic to a victim who was entirely blameless versus partially a victim of their own carelessness. A person who gets mugged on a busy street in broad daylight surrounded by witnesses vs. a person who meets a crypto scammer on a dating app and voluntarily sends him €7k - both have been stolen from, but the latter is partially a victim of their own greed and lack of forethought.
But the thing is, even if the algorithm by which to apportion sympathy that you're describing is an appropriate one, it isn't the algorithm any of the people under discussion are using. It's not like the far-right are thinking "Ashling Murphy was just minding her own business so I'm outraged, whereas Nikita Hand got drunk at a party and brought it on herself". And it's not like woke people are thinking "Nikita Hand was brutally raped by a man she trusted, whereas Ashling Murphy should have known better than to go for a run by herself in an isolated location with no witnesses". Both groups are just thinking "(Ashling Murphy)/(Nikita Hand) was assaulted by a member of my outgroup, so I'm furious; (Ashling Murphy)/(Nikita Hand) was assaulted by a member of my in-group, so I'm going to look the other way and downplay it" (delete as appropriate). This is plainly demonstrated by the fact that Conor McGregor's admirers turn a blind eye to all the other horrible things he's done, in which the "you got too drunk and brought this on yourself" defense clearly doesn't apply e.g. assaulting a middle-aged man because he refused a glass of whiskey he was offered.
I think this is uncharitable. I don't claim to know their minds but I suspect at least some would apply this algorithm. Also I believe the
distinction is a natural cultural tradition, on par with many situations that result in adverse outcomes that can be described as 'natural consequences' or 'mess around and find out'. People holding to this tradition may not apply the algorithm knowingly but it's baked into their tradition and culture.
Isn't this a common framing that is labeled as victim blaming?
I'll agree here, this isn't a framing I've frequently seen or encountered.
I'll disagree slightly here, knowing when to accept the drink you don't want to save the interlocuteur a loss of face is a useful life skill as is not being unnecessarily antagonist in your refusal to partake.
There are lots of places
might get you hit.
I don't mean any of this as support for Connor McGregor or his fans. From the reporting he seems unpleasant. It's not a sport I follow. Nor do I believe this sort of behavior or outcome is extraordinary. The press routinely reports on the poor behavior and alleged crimes of many high profile individuals, professional athletes especially.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an excellent and rarely integrated point in these discussions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link