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 -
Because every different forum has it's own discussion norms. The norms here are that when people say "X is more Y than Z" it is assumed that "past a certain threshold there exists more X in Y than Z".
Are these norms unequivocally good or universal? No. But that's just how things developed over time. The understanding of distributions of different means and tail effects are fairly well internalized around here.
Discussions here are not dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. In other places the interpretation you highlighted might be the norm/default, it's not here. So I think it's best you just assume that can move on rather than questioning endlessly as to why that is the case.
A commonly shared context smoothes communication. And despite that people still write 1000 word comments.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/into-the-longhouse/
The article highlights many ways in which male-dominated and female-dominated discourse differs. Which does not imply XY dominated and XX dominated. It implies the animus behind the discourse. And it's natural that XY human beings are more likely to operate in the masculine animus more than the feminine one.
Feminine discourse norms prioritize inclusion above all else. This is good for certain place, but is bad for certain places too. If all discourse becomes feminine you pay a price for it much in the same way if all discourse become masculine. There is an argument to be made that currently discourse in the West and wherever it exports is culture tends to be more feminine than masculine.
The evidence is that women are quicker to take offense to things that have implications that there is some sort of heirarchy.
You can't measure it but you can measure proxies for it. As long as the proxy is good enough, the purpose is served. You don't even need to measure personality for example, as long as you have an idea of how different one person is from another along a certain dimension, you can create a measurement system, such as the Big 5 factor model.
Many users explained to you many times the reasoning behind this and why people talk as much. I don't think it bears repeating over and over again.
Yes, just about all online dating data supports the claims people are making here.
Also, I am continuously on the defensive here. I can just flip it around and start asking you for evidence for your claims. I suggest you understand and engage with my points instead of repeatedly taking the discussion back to where it started (you taking offense).
More options
Context Copy link