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 -
The whole point of that movie was that Harry and Sally were always destined to be together, they just didn't realize it at first. So of course Sally doesn't blow up at a proposition that she was down deep secretly pleased by, as the audience well knows.
I guess we've reached our point of irreconcilable disagreement: you think it's appropriate to ask any woman you'd like to fuck if she wants to fuck, without risk of the slightest social consequences for a badly-targeted approach. I don't think social interactions, and especially trying to get laid, are or should come with such a safety guarantee, even for socially awkward men.
Her internal monologue doesn't matter. I demand objective standards in dating behaviours, not dependent on women's secret whims. Ok, to wrap this up and come full circle, it's freedom of speech, it should be free from consequences, he did nothing wrong. She and her defenders support a cruel, contradictory, costly and harmful interaction model. They are blinded by a pathological, exclusive empathy for the woman in any situation (look at the relationship subs), and seek status by shitting relentlessly on low status males.
Okay. So if I told you "Hi, I'd like to fuck you," that should be free from consequences, even public embarrassment on my part when you tell your buddies I tried to proposition you in the men's room?
(Purely hypothetical example, I assure you. I have no idea how fuckable you are, and also, I'm straight.)
I am not actually in favor of a society where casually approaching people for sex is the norm. Now if your objection is that it's "unfair" because women aren't supposed to be slut-shamed, maybe I'd agree, to a point.
who is embarassed by whom and why? sounds like a nothingburger all around.
Yeah, no homo too, I'm like Straight Times Infinity, bro.
It's telling that the only argument you'll allow is exclusively about one half the population.(edit: not valid, I get what you mean now. Yes that is unfair, and another bullet point on the list of contradictory things the current social order upholds)People want to have sex with each other. Disallowing verbal expression of the sentiment does not make them chaste.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think most people are arguing for "without risk of the slightest social consequences", merely that the social consequences should be proportional, both to the "offense" and to what consequences women face for similar missteps.
Okay. This guy got embarrassed and will have a hard time getting a date at that school because he painted a big "L" on himself. I don't think that's disproportionate. Being kicked out of school or winding up on a list of "predatory men" would be disproportionate.
I assume this means you are okay with slut-shaming women for dressing immodestly and being overly flirtatious? So long as they aren't kicked out of school or wind up on some official list somewhere?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link