site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35038 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've seen a number of posters suggest that he was done in by bad/disingenuous feminist dating advice, implying that women will tell men "Yes, we like to fuck just as much as you do!" and that means you can approach a woman for sex the same way you wish a woman would approach you for sex. But I don't recall ever seeing dating advice, even from feminists, suggesting that any woman wants a proposition like "How about being my no-strings-attached fuck buddy?"

I don't understand the reasoning in these 2 sentences. The latter - "How about being my no-strings-attached fuck buddy?" - is clearly just an instantiation of the former - "Yes, we like to fuck just as much as you do!" and that means you can approach a woman for sex the same way you wish a woman would approach you for sex. It'd be like telling someone that they can order anything from the menu and when they say they want the pizza that's on page 2, responding with "I don't recall ever telling you that you could order pizza."

You might be able to have anything on the menu, but you can't just order it. There is a ritual you have to go through that may end up with you eating what's on the menu if you pass.

Thing is: there wouldn't be rituals if he was making the rules - it'd probably be the stereotype of Grindr. So he projects that unto the woman since, y'know, they're allegedly just like him here.

Which just goes back to "believing that men and women are identical was the error".

I don't understand the reasoning in these 2 sentences. The latter - "How about being my no-strings-attached fuck buddy?" - is clearly just an instantiation of the former - "Yes, we like to fuck just as much as you do!"

"We like to fuck" does not mean "We like fucking without even an implied relationship or commitment."

There may be some women who like the latter, but the former does not imply the latter.

It'd be like telling someone that they can order anything from the menu and when they say they want the pizza that's on page 2, responding with "I don't recall ever telling you that you could order pizza."

No, it would be like saying "I like making pizza" and someone concluding that means "I can randomly ask you to make me a pizza."

No, it would be like saying "I like making pizza" and someone concluding that means "I can randomly ask you to make me a pizza."

It's a strained analogy:

  • everyone's taught the polite lie that it's "baking a pizza together", not "you bake, and I eat"

  • there's a whole spectrum of propositions asking for casual sex maps onto, from "hey, would you be my on-call pizzaiolo?" to "hey, could I have a slice of your pizza the next time you feel like baking one?"

No, it would be like saying "I like making pizza" and someone concluding that means "I can randomly ask you to make me a pizza."

I feel like that argument undermines your point. It's totally normal if someone says "I like making pizza" to hit them up and be like "hey would you make me a pizza?".

It varies. I have friends who are chefs who kind of hate it when people expect them to cook at parties, at times they question whether they were invited just to cook. On the other hand if someone became friends with me just to listen to me rant about shit I don't know enough about, I'd be flattered.

Personally I'd consider it kind of rude to ask someone to make me a pizza just because they said they like making pizzas, so interpreting someone saying they like sex as meaning they are DTF with anyone who asks is just deeply weird to me.

I think that @ThenElection picked up on an important nuance I missed. Asking someone to have sex with you isn't like asking "make me a pizza", it's like asking "let's make pizza together sometime". Which is 100% acceptable to ask someone.

deleted

Well, there's a twee expression "a bun in the oven", which usually is the result of making pizza together.

Be rude or stay hungry.

Those are not the only options.

Cannibalism is never aceptable Amadan.

I'd kind of be miffed by "hey would you make me a pizza," though I wouldn't make it a federal case.

Here, though, the question is more analogous to "hey, want to make a pizza together sometime?" Which is entirely reasonable.

"We like to fuck" does not mean "We like fucking without even an implied relationship or commitment."

But that's not the message being discussed here. The message being discussed here is, "Yes, we like to fuck just as much as you do!" Which absolutely means "without even an implied relationship or commitment" (beyond the FWB relationship in this case).

No, it would be like saying "I like making pizza" and someone concluding that means "I can randomly ask you to make me a pizza."

The analogy here is quite different from the menu one, but I can engage with it. If the message "Yes, we like to fuck just as much as you do!" is analogous to "I like making pizza," then the analogous behavior to asking someone to be fuckbuddies would be more like "hey, want to make some pizza together?" Which would be a perfectly reasonable thing to ask someone in your friend group if you know that they like making pizza, especially if you also like making pizza. The whole thing about being fuckbuddies is that it's cooperative, not that one party is being demanded to serve the other person on a whim.

I think our disagreement is that you think the explicit message is "We like to fuck just as much as you do" and that implies "We have exactly the same attitudes towards sex and relationships that you do."

I can see how a socially obtuse person could infer the second statement from the first, but this goes back to the need to help socially obtuse people navigate social messaging that usually communicates things beyond the surface level.

  • -10

I think our disagreement is that you think the explicit message is "We like to fuck just as much as you do" and that implies "We have exactly the same attitudes towards sex and relationships that you do."

That is the message people - including some feminists - have gotten.

There's been a recent push for post-Sexual Revolution feminist philosophy for laymen and, from what I've heard from Louise Perry, that is one of the major bones of contention. That a lot of the messaging was basically that: "anything you can do we can do as well, or better"

From a review of her book (which matches what I've heard from her):

Well, not quite everything, as the author herself understands. True, women understandably celebrated their new freedom from unwanted pregnancy and successfully created a culture in which the traditional double standard seemed like the absurd relic of an oppressive age. Yet, over the ensuing decades, as sexual taboos melted away, women found themselves marching to the beat of another set of equally ill-suited norms. These norms largely aligned with the preferences of those high in sociosexuality, which generally means men, writes Perry. The idea was to be able to “have sex like a man,” in Sex and the City’s memorable phrase—purely for fun, without any messy emotions or attachments. Perry catalogues magazine and web articles explaining how to avoid “catching feelings” after a hook up, examples of women who can’t quite explain why they’re unhappy in a friends-with-benefits “pseudo-relationship,” and porn showing women “begging men for painful or degrading sex acts.” The cool kids, goes the message, should be comfortable with any and everything purported to bring sexual pleasure: oral, anal, polyamory, threesomes, BDSM, breath play (i.e., choking). The only limiting factor, the only moral imperative really, is consent from both parties.

https://www.city-journal.org/review-of-the-case-against-the-sexual-revolution

So, even for some feminists, the message was not necessarily that nuanced IRL.

I think our disagreement is that you think the explicit message is "We like to fuck just as much as you do" and that implies "We have exactly the same attitudes towards sex and relationships that you do."

I don't think this quite gets at the heart of it. It's not that "exactly the same attitudes" are implied, but certainly SOME sort of attitude is. Because the concept of "liking" something comes with it certain attitudes. If you like pizza so much that you'd eat it even if you're so full as to throw up or accompanied with chocolate cake or if the pizza is cold, and you're told that someone else likes pizza as much as you do, you'd reasonably be surprised if they only wanted fresh pizza from a specific restaurant and when they're hungry. Even if they clearly got just as much enjoyment out of that pizza as you did and would move heaven and Earth to get to that restaurant for that delicious, delicious pizza. That's not someone who meaningfully likes pizza as much as you do.

I can see how a socially obtuse person could infer the second statement from the first, but this goes back to the need to help socially obtuse people navigate social messaging that usually communicates things beyond the surface level.

Yes, this I agree with, and I think we can say that the types of feminist messaging about which we're talking is for the benefit of the socially apt at the cost of the socially obtuse. Perhaps all social messaging is like this to a large extent, though some are probably better than others at elegantly handling its predictable failure modes.

The latter - "How about being my no-strings-attached fuck buddy?" - is clearly just an instantiation of the former - "Yes, we like to fuck just as much as you do!" and that means you can approach a woman for sex the same way you wish a woman would approach you for sex.

Or, you know, the way gay dudes approach sex. Because it very very very much is exactly like that between us.

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