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 -
It's a typical response to literally referring to a man's protectiveness of his daughter's chastity (a woman he is expected to not be fucking) with the same terminology as a man's protectiveness of his wife's faithfullness (a woman he is expected to be fucking). It's quite rich to glug the poison straight from the skull and bones vial in front of everyone and then claim you were poisoned.
I'm not attacking possessiveness or general "thot-patrolling" here, my question is about the specific choice of language. Do you want to make your daughter your wife, and if not, why do you imply someone fucking your daughter would make you the same thing as someone fucking your wife? You hide behind "but other people at other venues ask such questions for other reasons, and anyway those other people don't sufficiently interrogate women like that".
Note that women will absolutely receive accusations of wanting their son for themselves if they chase away all his girlfriends and marriage prospects, if I can help it.
Because, as should be obvious, I'm not equating the two; I just find it an amusing metaphor and hyperbole.
If the first one occurs, one would say he got cucked. It's not hard to see why "cucked" could then be extended as a metaphor for the second. Cuckold itself is a metaphor derived from the cuckoo bird.
Do you get similarly indignant and performatively bewildered when someone uses a term like "Republicuck" or "wagecuck", or says that he or she got "cucked" by a blue-shell in Mario Kart right before the finish line? A week and a half back I microhumorously referred to myself as "wagecucking" or "salarycucking" in describing myself working a fulltime job; if you saw it at the time, would you have thrown a challenge flag to grandstand and "interrogate" me as to why I'd compare my employment status to my wife getting plowed by another man? If you did see it at the time, why didn't you?
Or maybe I just didn't feel like indulging your snide attempt at well-poisoning beyond the response I gave. Bad practice to reward bad behavior.
The usage of in "Republicuck" and "wagecuck" is drawing a parallel that I would call interesting, but not exactly in the same class as a joke. Jokes are a subclass of lies (otherwise "I was just joking" would not be a defense!), but I assume that those who use those terms intend to make salient a common element (of enthusiastically giving away something that you are honour/dignity-bound to keep for yourself) between sexual cuckoldry and loyalty to indifferent companies and parties that they really believe exists. The blue shell thing could work as a joke, but I don't see how it's funny (since jokes need to be lies plus something like surprise/subverted expectations?). Of the things you mentioned so far, your yes-chad assertion that you would consider supporting your pregnant cat cuckoldry is the only one that I see really working as a joke.
Either way, jokes only really work if expectations are in fact being subverted by them. That's why "oh yeah, I killed him and hid the body" can be funny if a bunch of friends are to have a party and one is inexplicably not showing up, but probably not when the next day police turn up to search your apartment in "we are not treating you as a suspect at the moment" mode. Similarly, you could've foreseen that in this situation you would be treated as at least slightly suspect of unhealthy feelings towards your daughter, which should completely preclude the usability of this theme as a joke. In fact, the idea that a perpetrator gives himself away by making context-inappropriate jokes about having done it is close to being a stock trope in criminal fiction and true-crime media.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm aware of the concept of edgy jokes. I'm also aware of the concept of masking real feelings with jokes, usually detected by the joke being particularly repetitive and adjacent to plainly stated opinions.
There are only trace amounts of Freudian potential in "wagecucking". It's really hard to imagine someone beating a wagecucking meme to death because he really feels sexually dominated by capitalism. I have tried just now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link