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 -
Assuming we accept OK Cupid data as accurate (which I see no reason not to), it still captures only a slice of online perspective. The incel takeaway is "Women are unreasonably selective and would rather get run through by Chads than settle down with a nice ordinary guy." And yet plenty of nice ordinary guys find wives. Hmm. Curious.
I believe the modern dating market is hellish and I'm glad I'm not in it. But I'm personally a data point in favor of "you don't have to be a Chad, and no,.you don't have to settle for an obese single mother either."
I am unsympathetic to arguments against women having choices for a number of reasons, but most of all because the men most likely to make them tend to also make it obvious why they don't get chosen.
I think one could make a very reasonable argument that both women and men shouldn't have choices (or at least, not that many).
What is that argument? Given a choice between loneliness and being stuck with someone undesirable, the latter is worse, IMO.
When you're given too many choices (and particularly when some of those choices are sort of fake), your standards for "undesirable" grow to the point to which you end up alone instead of with someone that could be good enough if both parties could put an effort (which they won't, because they have "choices").
Then there's the issue of dating apps, they are just too frictionless: you can swipe like 300 people if you so wish, conversations will end abruptly for the slightest reason, plans will be cancelled at the last moment, etc.
This means that, even if you're engaging them in good faith, your incentive is to actively get many matches, and then you're suddenly setting up dates with n different girls, and then rather than having to individually reject the ones you like the least, your incentive is to ghost them.
It's all some sort of terrible prisoners' dilemma that brings the worst out of both sexes.
I agree that the current dating market is kind of hellish and having seemingly infinite choices (except they all have infinite choices too) is unhealthy. However, I think realistic proposals have to encompass the sort of slow-moving, societal changes that require persuasion and adoption of healthier attitudes, not some sort of patriarchal regime or state-mandated breeding program, which is what incels proposing that young people (but especially women) shouldn't be given a choice usually circle around to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The "not that many" is key. This one specific man you don't like or spinsterhood is a bad deal. But so is 100 messages a day from random men on an app. I'm not sure what approach rate is ideal, but maybe it's something like six realistic choices.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link