site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33246 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Something nobody's mentioned yet: it's not just feminist men, it's men who are part of the "new age liberatory open relationships and bsdm because all old-fashioned sexual ethics are tools of the patriarchy" feminism that's popular in scenes like new atheism, lit shit, the film industry, etc.

You don't see e.g. Dworkin's husband getting accused of rape, because radical feminism doesn't provide the environment for weird sex shit. (At least involving men. They have their own issue with "womyn cannot rape or be violent, so telling anyone your lesbian partner beats you with a chair leg would be Letting Down The Systerhood")

But yes, as I've said before, 90% of it is the cycle of "high status men in feminist scenes have an endless supply of women who will happily do weird fetish shit" -> "retroactively regret it once the man goes from young and high status to old and merely rich" -> "reinterpret all old memories with the help of a therapist to match her current ick" -> "receive infinite praise and attention"

That's why none of these accusations are ever about something that happened last night, and there's always some string of enthusiastic text messages that are totally at odds with the way the accuser currently remembers things.

Edit: the situation Rincer talks about here is like the archetype for what I mean.

You’ll notice sex negative feminists don’t seem to have sex scandals- they apparently really believe and practice.

Are there any male feminists who describe themselves as "sex-negative"?

Yes, but traditionalist conservatives don't generally describe themselves as "feminist".

You don't see e.g. Dworkin's husband getting accused of rape, because radical feminism doesn't provide the environment for weird sex shit.

IIRC Dworkin was married (in the common-law sense) to a gay man. If he was never accused of raping a woman, it was probably for reasons unrelated to his politics or hers.

Dworkin was a political lesbian, Stoltenberg was a political gay man (IIRC way less of a thing but did exist), then they surprised themselves and the community by falling in love. Awkward! I know this from having been involved in the community, but I'm pretty sure Stoltenberg mentioned it in some of his writing, and Dworkin may have as well. Stoltenberg notably gave "nonsexist het sex" tips in IIRC Refusing to Be a Man (and they aren't implausible).

IIRC Dworkin was married to a gay man.

Would watch that anime.

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