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 -
Sorry for the late reply, been flat out.
I don't think they're exceptionally common here - really this forum's social conservatives are not representative of "social conservatives" in general, but there are a couple of users who are more adjacent to it and have opinions on sex and gender which basically justify displacing disproportionate amounts of responsibility to men. This part of their belief system is often not stated outright since TheMotte is generally hostile to this brand of thinking, but it's noticeable that they will shift between an "equality-of-opportunity" standard when it comes to discussions about what rights men should be granted over women (if they don't just elide that entire discussion entirely), while at the same time invoking men's supposed degenerate nature and women's inherent vulnerability in ways which would justify placing extra responsibility and deference on the part of men towards women. There is also a noticeable amount of focus on female safety sometimes in spite of women being a demographic that's far less likely to face violence than men. Especially when it allows them to pull one over on groups like the homeless or foreigners.
Probably not going to @ anyone here, but an example of a well-known social conservative with some appeal to younger men who I appreciate and yet who I think goes much harder on men than on women is Jordan Peterson (granted, his popularity has subsided recently and I haven't kept up with the newer popular conservative commentators). I do appreciate his commentary, I think he gets many things right, and I appreciate his critiques of feminist patriarchy theory. At the same time, his assignment of responsibility is highly directed toward men. As an example of this much of his dating philosophy centers around the idea that women should be picky, and men should adapt to their demands. He says about as much here in this clip, and asserts that if men aren't having success in the dating market, it can never be overly high or unreasonable female demands that are the issue. Women by definition cannot be the problem, and sexually unsuccessful men are at fault for not adapting to their preferences (this despite the fact that male status and attractiveness to women is relative, not absolute, so there will always be a group of men who are shafted by the 80/20 rule). So, men are to be the responsible adults yoked to meet their wants and needs, and this attitude towards men's role in society can be seen in his opinions on many topics. Men are conceptualised primarily through the lens of duty.
When asked "should women, in relationships, submit to men", OTOH, his assertion is that no, they should not. His philosophy on the role of the sexes in society often places obligations on men to cater to the wants and needs of women, children and society, and doesn't really impose very many sex-specific obligations on women in return. I've never seen him say anything even slightly similar to women in general, with the harsh tone of "Improve yourselves, buckettes, because you're shitting society up." Nor, apparently, should women surrender rights for the state of eternal childhood and lack of responsibility they enjoy. It's traditionalism for men and liberation for women, part 3000.
This is a good illustration of how incoherent the term "social conservative" has become. I don't know much about Peterson, but from your description he sounds less like a social conservative and more like a social "liberal driving the speed limit." Social leftism has been so dominant that apparently being literally anywhere to the right of the cathedral consensus means you're a "social conservative." I wouldn't be surprised if TERFs are considered "social conservatives."
I'm not going to disagree with you. Thing is, labels such as "progressivism" and "social conservatism" are constantly-shifting categories that get defined in relation to the norm, and the agreed-on societal starting point for debate has shifted left to the point that the social conservatives of today are liberals driving the speed limit and the social conservatives of yore are just horrible alt-righter fascists. The conservatism that many espouse over here is no longer inside the Overton Window.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link