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 -
Gaiman was accused of rape so it certainly didn't work on the long term. And she did eventually file police report, and find other victims or "victims" for those maximally skeptical.
I am critical of extensive progressive consent demands as bad for general society but there is probably a use for them when people are engaging in what seems like rapey BSDM behavior and not engaging in normal sex with their girlfriend/wife. Both to avoid raping the women and to avoid being accused of rape when they thought it was consensual. So there is some room for negotiation. Which is a superior consideration than the fact that this might not be as attractive to some.
Promiscuous, celeb worship culture, BSDM leads to abuse, people are more likely to do so towards those who aren't their wife, etc, etc.
But people part of such subcultures which have more abuse that differs from the morally superior more conservative society that follows superior norms than them should not then try to push BSDM/polyamory norms to the rest of society. Some element of male sexual imitative, "aggression" is part of sexual attraction to a point since men are to initiate sex, kiss, etc so yeah we shouldn't throw the baby with the bathwater and be careful to have reasonable lines and standards and so I don't want to legitimize "I had sex willingly and went along with the man taking the initiative but wasn't that into it, or after a while think I regret it = rape". We have a relationship deficit. We ought to be careful not to promote shitty norms that discourage relationships and sex within relationships leading to marriage. Obviously men have to take the initiative which also relates to signals sent by women, and women don't find it attractive if men don't take the initiative. So the norms should not be stacked against men who try to do this. But there is a line still where it becomes abusive rape/sexual assault and Gaiman seems to have crossed it repeatedly unless we are to believe it is all bullshit.
It is possible this guy was at some point with his sexually aggressive rapey behavior raping/sexually assaulting these women because "when you are rich and famous they let you do it" and went an extra mile in humiliation and aggression, and at some point she decided to no longer accept it. Which is a genuine risk of going with the full dark triad approach.
Plenty of celebs have engaged and been accused of engaging in plenty of promiscuous consensual sex, statutory rape, actual genuine rape. Even a celeb who engages in that and gets away with it might be accused of rape down the line.
More options
Context Copy link