site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34999 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

While I'm not broadly sympathetic to the whole organised atheist movement of that time, I can empathise with Watson, even though she did exaggerate somewhat; it was very late at night, they'd been drinking in the hotel bar and talking and she just wanted to go to bed. This guy goes up in the lift with her and propositions her. I do understand why she'd feel at risk in a confined space with a possibly drunk guy where she has no idea how he'll react (and her being possibly drunk and tired as well didn't help with how she reacted or felt).

Mainly what I took away from it was confusion; first when I heard about "do you want to come back to my place/come up to mine for coffee?" I was young and stupid and thought it just meant that: an offer of coffee. "Ha ha, don't be silly, it's an offer of sex and if you accept then you are consenting to sex" was the explanation I got when wondering about why women complained men were asking for sex on such occasions. Then came Elevatorgate, and suddenly "Do you want to come to my room for coffee?" simply meant an offer of coffee and how could anyone imagine it was an offer of sex? You see my confusion?

It's not exactly an invitation for sex. It's an invitation to move to an isolated place where sex might plausibly happen. It's the next step in escalating the flirting dance. By agreeing to go back to a man's room for coffee, a girl is not necessarily saying "I will have sex with you", but rather "I am open to the possibility of having sex with you if you play your cards right."

The coffee is just an excuse. It could just as easily be "do you want to come to my place to watch Netflix?" or "do you want to go back to my room to see my marble collection?" Conversely, nobody thinks that "do you want to grab a coffee at Starbucks?" is going to lead to public sex on the Starbucks bar. The move from a public space to a private space is the key.

It just has to be plausibly deniable so that the girl can tell herself (and her friends, and her family, and her boyfriend/husband...) that she really didn't mean to sleep with the guy, but it "just happened". It's a way to get past her anti-slut defense. Otherwise, there is too much common knowledge.

t just has to be plausibly deniable so that the girl can tell herself (and her friends, and her family, and her boyfriend/husband...) that she really didn't mean to sleep with the guy, but it "just happened". It's a way to get past her anti-slut defense.

It's not an anti-slut defense. It's a reasonable out "if I change my mind once we are alone" defense. Even with people I know well and have had sex with before (exes) I don't like the pressure of inviting someone over for sex explicitly. Because sometimes you change your mind, and you feel pressured by your earlier offer/commitment. Much less with a stranger. (I've never found myself in this situation with a stranger).

I'm on the side of "of course it's an offer for sex, phrased in a way that someone can offer and be accepted or turned down in a socially acceptable way". The thing is, this seems like a pretty reasonable offer given the whole drinking in a hotel bar at a conference thing. Maybe he should have said it before getting on an elevator, I can empathize with her not feeling great about the interaction, but this really isn't a particularly weird thing to do at a conference where people are drinking in the hotel lobby.

Well, it was very late - something like 2 in the morning, if I can go by shaky memory, and it had been a bunch of people including Watson who stayed chatting after the formal conference ended. So as far as she was concerned, he was just Random Stranger.

Had it been the pair of them alone chatting in the bar, I agree he would have had steadier grounds for assuming she might be open to an approach, but it wasn't.

The offer of coffee that late/early in the morning increases my prior that it wasn't just coffee being offered.

The way I remember the drama was that the guy asked her out, in pretty polite way IIRC, she said "no", the guy said "ok" and went on his merry way. Later on she brought that up as an example of "sexual objectification", and it was something the skeptic community was supposed to self-flagellate about.

If anything, comparing it to EA's low-key pressure to participate in drug fueled poly-orgies is unfair to the elevator guy. From today's perspective it's like watching a guy in the 19th century get slapped in the face for a misstep in obscure Victorian etiquette.

There's a timeline (from the anti-Atheism+ perspective) here. The two things that made it blow up was when Watson "called out" Stef McGraw and then when Dawkins responded to a blog post defending that calling out. The original negative responses to Watson's video were just some Youtube comments, Stef McGraw's blog post, and Rose St. Clair's video response. Stef was a student who posted a blog post disagreeing with the idea that the encounter was an example of sexism. Watson, giving a talk at the CFI Student Leadership Conference, mentioned Stef was in the audience, called out her "parroting of misogynistic thought", conflated fear of "sexual objectification and assault", and claimed people like her were scaring women away from atheist conferences:

Because there are people in this audience right now who believe this: that a woman's reasonable expectation to feel safe from sexual objectification and assault at skeptic and atheist events is outweighed by a man's right to sexually objectify her. That's basically what these people have been telling me, and it's not true.

Since starting Skepchick I've heard from a lot of women who don't attend events like this because of those who have this attitude. They're tired of being objectified, and some of them have actually been raped; quite a number of them have been raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted. And situations like the one I was in, in an elevator, would have triggered a panic attack. They're scared, because they know that you won't stand up for them. And if they stand up for themselves, you are going to laugh them back down. And that's why they're not coming out to these events.

The call-out provoked some criticism on Twitter, and Watson responded with a blog post defending her actions and calling out some other people like Rose St. Clair and CFI intern Trevor Boeckmann. More criticism followed, such as Abbie Smith's Bad Form, Rebecca Watson blog post and McGraw's own response. This in turn provoked a bunch of blog posts supporting Watson's actions, such as PZ Myers's "Always Name Names!". In the comments for "Always Name Names", Richard Dawkins made his famous "Dear Muslima" comment mocking the idea that being asked to have coffee together at a conference was an example of sexism. (It is sometimes characterized as being a "don't complain because things are worse elsewhere" argument, but his other comment specifically said that wasn't his point and explained his reasoning.) This got too many blog posts to count calling him a misogynist and so on and got Watson to say she would boycott his work.

Often when Elevatorgate is summarized from the pro-social-justice side it's described as if Watson just made the comparatively mild original video and the atheism/skepticism community blew up at her, but what really got it going was how she responded to those like McGraw who disagreed. As well as ramping up her condemnation of the original interaction. (Something many of her supporters took even further, such as Amanda Marcotte arguing that Elevator Guy's invitation amounted to a rape-threat.)

Richard Dawkins made his famous "Dear Muslima" comment mocking the idea that being asked to have coffee together at a conference was an example of sexism.

Yeah, but it wasn't just "fancy getting a coffee together?", it was that euphemistic way of "want to have sex with me?" of asking which makes it different. Plus, I may be being a bitch here because I don't like Dawkins, but he would be flattered by a young woman asking him for a coffee with the implication that she wants to knock boots with him. In today's environment, of course, accepting would be very stupid to do due to the risks of accusations of sexism and power imbalance, even if he didn't grab the chance to knock boots with her.

There's exaggeration on both sides and I agree it's hard to find a reasonable balance, but while I think Watson over-reacted, I also don't think she was totally unreasonable: there are risks for women alone at night in confined spaces with strange men. And of course "not all men", but we don't know all the background - if she was constantly being hit on by guys at conferences, in similar circumstances - just met her and were strangers to her - then she would see it as a problem of sexism. Men would not have that same experience so would feel she was over-reacting and exaggerating and creating a problem where none existed.

It's the curse of all organisations that get together to do good, especially in reaction to the current social environment. "We're supposed to be better than that, we're supposed to be past all the old shibboleths and taboos, we're supposed to all be clear thinkers acting on reason and not the same old sexism/racism/ -phobia/ -ists!" It's human nature, is what it is, and we'll never be free of it no matter how progressive we think we are.

there are risks for women alone at night in confined spaces with strange men

This argument always struck me as strange. An elevator literally opens its doors on its own and has more traffic than a normal room, it's halfway to being a hallway. Under what plausible circumstance does it pose more of a risk than a normal room? The timeframe that you can't leave it is a matter of seconds. Anything you could do in that timeframe (like groping/stabbing/purse-snatching someone) can be done elsewhere by attacking by surprise. The thing that stops someone from attacking you isn't that you can open the doors without waiting 10 seconds, it's the combination of most people not being violent criminals and the violent criminals getting arrested.

Removing the gender aspect, if you're in a fight with a substantially stronger person, your first order of business is going to be putting distance between you and him and hopefully buying a few seconds to scream for help or find something to defend yourself with. That's possible in a regular room or hallway; it's not possible in an elevator, where you may well be knocked out as soon as anything starts. Not too different from the risk of being in a narrow alley as opposed to a wide street.

That doesn't detract from the fact that it's social norms and laws that are doing most of the work here. But it's defense in depth; adding a layer of being in a physical space where you're not as disadvantaged is a reasonable approach to risk mitigation.

Well, if you're really "knocked out as soon as anything starts" in knockout-game fashion then the 10 seconds don't matter. It's just a matter of letting someone within arms reach, which you do all the time when inside buildings. Meanwhile realistically most unarmed struggles don't involve being knocked out at all and last longer than the time inside an elevator. The length of the fight needs to be in a very specific timing sweet-spot to be advantageous to the attacker. In exchange it's going to open doors to a floor that might have people waiting in a matter of seconds, plus anyone could subsequently press the elevator button and call it to them. Alleys are riskier because they're more isolated from other people, they're not narrower than how close people get inside a building and the only thing preventing you from running away from an alley is the attacker. This is particular relevant for the "rape threat" interpretation, since rape obviously wouldn't fit inside the timeframe.

early in the morning? i mean... it's very very reasonable for us to be uncomfortable if there's a guy (who is probably stronger than us) who is essentially propositioning, early in the morning, in an area with no escape.

the exact issue here is that an elevator is an isolated space. with a hallway there are potential ways to get help or escape, but in an elevator there is none of that.

if a guy i didn't know said something similar to me in that context, i'd be very weirded out too

Don't elevators often have cameras, too?

I also don't think she was totally unreasonable: there are risks for women alone at night in confined spaces with strange men

She wouldn't be unreasonable if that's what she said, but she couched in terms of "sexual objectification" and "unwanted sexual advances". Metooers, and even people in this thread argue about the evils of workplace relationships, Watson argued about the evils of propositioning someone at a hobby group meet-up, and the other day I heard something about how wrong it is to try to chat someone up at the gym. So where, pray tell, is a guy allowed to make a pass at someone without it becoming an international scandal?

I made fun of the Victorians in the other comment, but at least they had clear rules for this kind of stuff.

So where, pray tell, is a guy allowed to make a pass at someone without it becoming an international scandal?

Developing countries.

Scott had an old LiveJournal post about this, where he likened dating to Russian spies trying to identify each other while undercover in the US. On the one-hand, Scott is a pretty neurotic and anxious person who has stared too long into the CW; on the other, it's not exactly wrong. Anyone else remember this? I couldn't find it in the best archive of squid314 that I was able to unearth.

The "Do you like borscht?" dialog

From "The Fourth Meditation On Creepiness" by Scott Alexander:

Imagine two Soviet spies in the Cold War US who have to get in contact with one another. The KGB forgot to give them a silly code phrase like "the wombat feeds at midnight" so they've got to figure it out on their own. The Americans know these two spies are trying to get in contact, so if one were to just ask random people "Are you a Soviet spy?" the Americans could quickly guess that the asker was a spy and arrest him.

You are one of the two spies, and you spot someone who you're about 50% sure is your colleague. How do you confirm they are also a spy with the lowest possible risk of getting arrested?

I bet there's some fancy cryptographic solution here, but my intuitive strategy would be as follows:

Me: Excuse me, sir, do you know any good borscht restaurants around here?

Other Spy: Ah, borscht. I love borscht!

Me: I hear Russian borscht is the best. Have you ever had any?

Other Spy: Yes, I was in Moscow once many years ago, before the war.

Me: Really? Have you ever been to [street the KGB headquarters is on?]

Other Spy: All the time! That's my favorite street! I used to talk to [name of KGB head] a lot.

Me: I am a Soviet spy. Are you one too?

Other Spy: Yes.

You would be immediately under suspicion if you asked patriotic Americans "Are you a Soviet spy?", since they would then know you were probably the other spy yourself. So instead you lead up with a question that seems innocuous to an American who's not thinking about spying, but to a Soviet who is specifically looking for another spy is sorta kinda suggestive of Russia. The other spy can't just say "Ah, I understand your code, I too am a spy" because then he might blow his cover to an American who was just looking for some good borscht. So he says something that slightly escalates the Russianness. You can't just blow your cover now, because you're still not sure he's not just an American who appreciates a good plate of borscht himself, so you escalate the Russianness slightly further. In other words, you start off with a conversation that could happen by coincidence, decrease the chance of coincidence a little bit at each exchange only once you get the signal from the other, and eventually the conversation becomes one that couldn't possibly happen by coincidence and you know he's the other spy.

When I was much younger and more terrified of women, this was exactly the route I would take. I didn't want to know if she was my fellow spy, I wanted to know if she liked me. I can't just ask, or I might end up as the next Julius Rosenberg. So instead - maybe we're sitting next to each other, so I move a little closer to her. If she moves a little closer to me, or does anything that could be interpreted in my feverishly optimistic brain as resembling this, then maybe I touch my leg against hers. If she touches her leg against me, maybe I rest my arm against her shoulder. If she rests her arm against my shoulder, I smile at her. If she smiles at me, then I ask for her hand in marriage.

One can also do this verbally. It would pain me to even type out the conversation, but I assure you it's still pretty awkward.

And when this doesn't work, sometimes if the other person just looks super Russian it's tempting to worry you've miscalibrated your subtlety ("Man, what if this guy just really hates borscht? Maybe I should call him Comrade and see what happens?) and try something else.

And okay, this is all super creepy, and I know that now, and I'm sorry for doing it, and I won't do it again.

(by the way, the one time this worked I was so flabbergasted and confused I completely forgot to ask for her hand in marriage. In case you haven't figured it out from this latest series of blog posts, I'm kind of an idiot.)

But let me try to explain (not justify, mind you) why this might seem like a thing someone should do.

I had a friend a few years ago, let's call her Alice. I asked Alice out on a date. She said she wanted to keep being friends. This went well. No, really. It actually went well.

Alice moved to another state, and a little while afterwards I went to visit her for a week. I worried if it might be creepy if I asked her to cuddle after she had said she wanted to be friends, but eventually I asked her anyway, and she said that was great and she loved cuddling and had been pretty desperate for someone to cuddle with.

We cuddled all week, but I was super super careful not to touch her breasts or any other part of her body that might be interpreted as outside the spirit of friendly platonic cuddling. On the last day she basically grabbed my hands and put them on her breasts and told me that she really liked having her breasts touched and obviously I was never going to get around to asking her of my own initiative.

And, being male, I thought Darnit, I could have been doing that the last six days!

And on the train home I was thinking about this, and I tried to figure out if there was something I could have done differently, and I decided that there is literally no non-creepy way to say "Excuse me, do you mind if I place my hands on your breasts?" Try it. I dare you to construct a non-creepy version of that sentence.

(as an aside, the existence of the non-threatening and socially acceptable word "cuddle" is super helpful. Before I learned that word I just never cuddled anyone, there is no non-creepy way to say "Excuse me, do you mind if I touch and stroke your body?")

Putting your hands on someone's breasts without asking them is a much worse offense than asking "Excuse me, do you mind if I place my hands on your breasts?". But, someone who actually puts their hands on someone else's breasts without asking them is likely to get swatted away and get a "Go away, creep!" and then the issue will probably never be spoken of again. If there were a rumor at my high school that some guy had put his hands on some girl's breasts, it would die down in a week, two weeks tops. On the other hand, someone who goes up to a girl and asks "Excuse me, do you mind if I place my hands on your breasts?" becomes a creepiness legend. If there were a rumor at my high school that some guy had asked a girl for permission to put his hands on her breasts, then that rumor would pass down from upperclassmen to lowerclassmen through the generations, and a thousand years from now when the high school exists only in cyberspace the disembodied transhuman freshmen would still be giggling to one another about it.

The same is true of the creepy Soviet-spy escalating thing. Is it creepy and horrible? Yes. Is it so utterly non-juicy that it would never make a good rumor? Also yes. So the more terrified a guy is of asking "Would you like to go out?" or "Would you like to cuddle?" or even "May I put my hands on your breasts?", the more likely he is to try creepiness instead. On the other hand, the day you can ask consent without any fear of reprisal or shaming is the day that men give a huge sigh of relief and just ask out the women they like without going through the whole creepiness rigamarole which honestly is pretty stressful for us too.

This is why I keep stressing that creepiness comes from male weakness rather than male privilege. If there were no risk of getting arrested, then the Soviet spy wouldn't ask silly questions about borscht. If there were no risk of being pilloried as a horrible creepy person for asking out a person "above your station", then creepy high school me wouldn't have sat uncomfortably close to girls in the hopes that this would prompt them to spontaneously show interest.

It's probably worth noting that later in that chain of posts Scott noted that commenters reassured him that what he was doing wasn't necessarily that creepy in and of itself—that gradual escalation is sort of how things go a lot of the time, and that works out pretty well.

If that is right, Scott was somewhat incomplete in that male weakness analysis of creepiness—although that might be the occasion for the whole thing. It's not from the mere existence of this phenomenon, but from mistakes. Creepiness would come instead from communication issues in this activity—either men showing interest too overtly too quickly, or men failing to pick up/women failing to communicate that they're not wanted, and so interest is shown mistakenly. This is of course made more difficult by the fact that people are not the same.

Another useful Scott post, along the same lines, is this one, where he talks along the same line of deliberate ambiguity.

Then came Elevatorgate, and suddenly "Do you want to come to my room for coffee?" simply meant an offer of coffee and how could anyone imagine it was an offer of sex?

I've never personally seen anyone defend the coffee-propositioner by saying "he just meant coffee, not sex". I've always seen people saying that of course he meant sex. But that it's no excuse for Watson to act like she was in danger or anything. I've seen people saying that "do you want to come back to my room for coffee" is the civil way of propositioning sex in polite society, and that if women are going to shame men for saying that, then there's basically nothing women won't blame men for.

Also, I've never seen anyone remotely saying that consenting to coffee means that you're consenting to sex. Yes, it's a coded suggestion of sex, but no one thinks that that is enough to say it's a done deal.

I haven't any bookmarks but I do remember reading comments about "he only meant coffee, not sex, how could she blow this up about that kind of misunderstanding?"

Well, I'm not saying you're wrong that some people somewhere, possibly even many people, have made that argument. I'm sure some people have. But I don't think it's representative of the discourse that I saw around it during the time. I saw no arguments myself from a lot of the popular online anti atheism+ folks, Thunderfoot and The Amazing Atheist for example, and even Dawkins, that hinged around the idea that the man in question could have meant anything else other than trying to nicely proposition sex. And I think most of those people made great cases for why Rebecca Watson and atheism+ in general were completely out of line and antithetical to the values of atheism, even if the guy was actually asking her to have sex.

No bookmarks either, but I'll back you up on this. I do remember some blog post where "he could have just meant coffee" was used as an argument, but it was more of a cherry on top, than the core argument. And to be fair to whoever made that argument, there was something about the way he asked her out (as quoted by Watson herself), that made me go "Jesus, the guy sounds autistic enough that he could have actually just meant coffee".

possibly drunk guy

If he were drunk or threatening Watson would have mentioned it. The only real dig she has against him is that while the man was part of the group with her at the bar, she didn’t talk with him before, so there was no rapport.

Then came Elevatorgate, and suddenly "Do you want to come to my room for coffee?" simply meant an offer of coffee

Hu? No, the issue was if it was a big deal or not. And everyone had an opinion on it, and it was a scissor statement, because this is playing out countless times every weekend in social settings, men trying to make a more or less suave/cringy move, and women rejecting it or not.

It is a scissor statement. Can people not see why a total stranger making a proposition at a bad time was unwelcome? I think she did go too hard on it, but I think a lot of the reaction was just as bad.

The problem is when a man has his life dismantled because of a few words spoken to the wrong person. This has happened several times to me in my life, at a small scale but it was scary enough at the time that I still have psychological problems related to it. Why should I have my life ruined just to spare a woman a few minutes of discomfort?

Unwelcome? Sure.

A clear sign that the community as a whole has a sexism problem? No.

It's just not a big deal. The guy took no for an answer. Normal people have uncomfortable interactions like this and shrug and move on.

She could just say "no". There was no evidence that it was a risk.

There was no evidence that it was a risk.

Naturally.

It.

Never.

Happens.

If the fear is being accosted or killed by a male who is angry at sexual rejection...

And we assume that this is a rational fear...

I would argue that she should probably find a person who can accompany her to unfamiliar places to act as a deterrent to such aggressive men.

Going around alone seems like an insane risk, under these circumstances.

Preferably a male, who has some investment in her wellbeing. Like a brother or uncle or, perhaps, a boyfriend?

Does this solution seem like a socially acceptable one?

It sure seems logical under the facts you're implying here.

Since we're among rationalists, what probability would you ascribe to this?

She could have been killed just for getting in the elevator with him!

If anything, by using euphemism it should signal she was in less danger. The whole point of the euphemism is plausible deniability so the woman can demur without hurting anyone’s feeling.

Its like, either there's a polite way for a man to inquire about sexual availability or there's not.

If there's not, then that leaves the man with the option of keeping silent or just blatantly blurting out his desire.

If there is, then the social expectation goes both ways, and the man should expect that he will be politely rejected and the incident will not be spoken of again.

Instead, it seems more like the only way to know if your inquiry will be considered 'polite' or not is to somehow perfectly model the woman's feelings about you before you ask.

This guy goes up in the lift with her and propositions her. I do understand why she'd feel at risk in a confined space with a possibly drunk guy where she has no idea how he'll react (and her being possibly drunk and tired as well didn't help with how she reacted or felt).

If this is a big enough worry for someone, it may be worth following a reverse-Pence rule and actively avoiding getting into confined spaces with young men.

The Pence Rule is a good one. Don't, in situations where alcohol is involved, be alone with a person of the opposite sex. It's a good rule for women and for men. Because stupid crap happens - people do get tempted, people do get carried away, misunderstandings like this one happen. There's too many cases of "married boss and secretary/assistant had affair" because of propinquity and time spent together and getting close.

Yes, I think it's laughably ironic that all the 'bad' old religious rules about "leave room for the Holy Ghost" are coming back in our era of liberation and openness and no kinkshaming, but it's evidence that the old rules weren't stupid but were based on practical experience of what happens when sex and alcohol and temptation are in the mix. They chopped down the Chesterton's Fence and then were astounded to be gored by the bull, so now they're busy building giant walls in place of the fence, which is an over-reaction.

propinquity

It's relatively rare I learn a wholly new, non-technical word these days. Thanks.

I haven't conducted a rigorous survey to determine preferences, but anecdotally a lot of women do avoid being alone with men they don't know/don't know well. However, it isn't necessarily easy in all contexts - sometimes you're stuck using a nominally public space which doesn't afford the usual 'protection' of crowds of people to witness any bad behavior (such as a hotel elevator late at night).

Then, I think, it's time for a risk assessment and an exploration of mitigation strategies. Have any of the women you've known ever carried a self defense weapon like mace or a taser?

They've gotten their fear of social danger mixed up with their fear of physical danger.

I've spent lots of time around women who actually have been physically assaulted, and they don't pull this "I feel unsafe" crap. They have some idea of what dangerous men actually look and smell like, and don't regard all men they meet as incipient rapists.

My own theory is that women get told constantly to Be Afraid, but don't actually know what it is they're supposed to be afraid of and thus their Danger Sense isn't particularly well-calibrated.

They have some idea of what dangerous men actually look and smell like, and don't regard all men they meet as incipient rapists.

And, of course, approximately zero of their attacks will look like, "goes to an atheist conference, drinks with a group, and then attacks one of the other conference-goers in an elevator". I'm not saying that none of the men there are predators or that none of them would use physical force under some circumstances, but I'd bet that this is not the modus operandi. This was right around the peak of Law and Order: SVU popularity though, so "nerdy atheist brutally attacks women in elevators" probably sounded like the kind of thing that happens all the time.

I've privately theorized that the reason the woke seem to be predisposed to latch on takes like all men are rapists, all blacks are criminals, etc... is that they're actually unable to read the subtler queues of predatory behavior and are thus defaulting to coarser proxies.

seem to be

Ah, there's your problem.

Who actually does this? Who is latching on to "all blacks are criminals" and using that to justify reparations or whatever?

This is one of the least charitable takes I've seen on this board. At least from someone who isn't actively trolling. It assumes your enemies are both incompetent and malicious, and to do so, it relies on an absolutely bizarre example.

Okay, let's throw out that example and replace it with something more credibly woke, like "all cops are bastards." What advantage does this theory have over one based on negotiation?

There is obvious strategic and historical precedent for using a "coarser proxy," like a slogan, to start negotiation from a stronger point. "54-40 or fight!" It has the added advantage of making it harder for enemies to dramatically mislabel one's position. You can explain the worst excesses of woke sloganeering as a signaling race to the bottom. No need to construct a narrow form of autism.

A lot of this is just not being exposed to this stuff, and not being willing to listen to people who are without it going through 27 layers of academic theory. They’re sheltered, not stupid.

It's like a psychological allergy. Growing up in an environment that's too clean prevents your immune system from calibrating appropriately, and it seems that growing up with too much psychological safety has a similar effect. Unfortunately, this trait has become a kind of status signifier among women, and so they're now actively cultivating their psychological allergies.

the woke seem to be predisposed to latch on takes like ... all blacks are criminals

In what universe do the woke subscribe to this take?

This one. Have you not been paying attention to the last decade or so of rhetoric surrounding policing, no cash bail, decriminalization, etc.?

That is nowhere close to believing all blacks are criminals though. The prototypical woke person might say Black people are incorrectly viewed as being criminals by systemic bias in law enforcement (and society in general) and therefore dismantling those systems will be beneficial for black communities who have been targeted for criminalization (they will likely point to differences in drug possession laws and length of.sentences and so on).That is not the same thing at all. More nuanced progressives might say that black people do commit more crime (though it is still skewed by racist police) but will explain that through systemic poverty, poor mental health treatment and the like driven by systemic or structural racism. But again that is nowhere near saying all blacks are criminals

The woke oppose each and every anti-criminal policy because they believe, correctly, that such measures will have a disparate impact on blacks. It's a doublethink situation similar to Dreher's Law Of Merited Impossibility, except instead of "it will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it" it's "blacks are not more criminal than average, and if you support any tough-on-crimes policy you are a racist because criminals are disproportionately black."

As Covfefe Anon says, "The Woke Are More Correct Than The Mainstream".

The problem with @Covfefe_Anon's take, is that it the whole dark skin = underlass really only holds predictive value in spaces that are already dominated by the woke. My own experience, as well as that of several others here, would suggest that this is far from inevitable. Accordingly can't help but suspect naive assumption that wokist habit cultivating racial division/grievences is in fact increasing racial division, and "racism" rather than fighting.

Just a week ago we were treated to the spectacle of a bunch of college kids from traveling from Portland and Boston to Atlanta to "fight racism" by smashing windows in minority neighborhoods and setting fire to cars. Now they and thier supporters are screaming "white supremecy" and "internalized racism" because instead finding themselves welcomed as liberators they found themselves being pelted with rocks by the local populace, shot at/arrested by the local (predominantly black) cops, and charged with domestic terrorism by the Georga State AG at the behest of Atlanta's black Mayor.

Ironically the only sources that seem to be covering it (outside local channels) are the hard core partisans, I suspect in part because the woke at the New York and LA Times are smart enough to realize that this is not a good look for them.

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