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 still not a buzz cut.
/images/1741961768061841.webp
Yeah I'm unfamiliar with any of these properties and understood BigGuy to mean something more cyberpunk than 'mid-lesbo' -- like a Chelsea with some gel-work on top.
It’s more the association. In the late 2000s, unnaturally colored hair dye and outré haircuts tended to be associated with the Alt and Scene aesthetic movements. Most of the girls who had that style back then tended to be stylish and attractive. Then in the early 2010s, partially because of the Scott Pilgrim movie, those kinds of hairstyles got very very popular. Odd cuts, side shaves, pink and blue hair dye was everywhere. Many women pulled it off well but a lot didn’t. As the 2010s wore on (and the culture war started to heat up) it gradually began to acquire negative associations. This is when the stereotype of the “300 lb blue-haired social justice warrior with BPD” started to develop (I don’t like to make fun of anyone’s appearances, but that was the stereotype). As time went on, and the millennial demographic aged, but still maintained a lot of those haircuts, it morphed into the “HR political commissar who is about to fire you” stereotype haircut. That’s why you see a lot of posters on here calling it “danger warning hair” or saying it’s very unattractive to heterosexual men. So when people today look back at Scott Pilgrim and see Ramona with that haircut, they get the wrong cultural signal from it. It’s supposed to signal that Ramona is unusually cool, sexy and a bit dangerous. But today a lot of people see it and just think it looks kind of cringe and lame and wonder why Scott didn’t see the obvious warning signs.
I am with you 100%, and I'm more thinking about chicks from the 1990s FFS -- I'm just saying that that particular haircut and that particular actress are... kind of ugly -- the dye doesn't really tip the scales one way or the other for me.
Everyone in that movie was ugly. Ramona, in particular, looks like a man (and even looking at her actress after the fact gives me that impression- it's not just for the movie).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link