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 -
Everyone I know just swapped back to Trump from Desantis. The establishment has shown themselves again and their target is Trump. These people need to lose and losing in a painful defeat and that’s by electing Trump.
Also the more I think about this case is Trumps the victim here. A former sexual partner was going to basically do revenge porn to him and do a tabloid write up on having sex with him. That’s revenge porn. Not on video by textually. So he paid her off. The lefts doing victim blaming that he just didn’t take it and have his sex life publically aired while he’s on the biggest stage of his life.
Hillary shouldn’t have been jailed. The word criminal is just a motte and bailey. You’re using it to mean someone who did a very bad thing. But all it means is state power got to put someone in jail. Now I don’t think Trumps a good man but he did nothing wrong here.
No. No, no, no!
We're in this mess because of the number of people convinced that a vote for Trump is striking at The Establishment. That making the Hillaries and Pelosis of the world uncomfortable is, in some way, an end goal. Whenever he fails to deliver on actual policy, well, that's just the Deep State conspiring, right? And whenever he actively serves himself, his supporters aren't going to lose face by admitting that the shady, egocentric wheel-and-dealer might have some self-interest. That's a losing strategy, and we don't like losers around here. This stupid fucking tribal calculus completely dominates any assessment of whether Trump is actually effective!
Can't you see how this is the exact mirror of all that bullshit about "holding Trump accountable?" The only thing that matters is whether this guy wins or loses. Go team.
Well, Trump is the only president to lose money in recent times. Maybe you can admit that Clinton, Obama, and Bush also "actively serve themselves"?
People keep saying this, but Trump's policies meant my paycheck went up and illegal immigration went down. Maybe he could have done more if, cough cough, he hadn't been hamstrung by so many investigations and impeachments.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You got that in 2016. It did nothing for you because your case rests on people seeing through the supposed illusion when the anti-populists attacked him. But Trump was very bad at eliciting that, he has said and done many things the people you're trying to court could find objectionable.
If he was meant to be Rosa Parks, then the part that's being forgotten is that you have to engineer him doing what he does. There has to be a strategy beyond just getting him in trouble as well. Parks wasn't the first woman to be denied seating, that went to a single mother who was passed over because people thought her status wouldn't look good. Where's the equivalent for Trump? I suppose DeSantis, but it looks like Trump has some serious followers and looks to be getting ready to fight for being the Republican nominee in 2024.
It would be one thing if Trump successfully punched out the establishment but he drowned in controversies of his own making instead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Talking about having sex with someone is your definition of revenge porn?
Perhaps not, but "threatening to talk about having sex with someone then changing your mind when they give you money" is the central definition of a couple of things normally considered even worse than revenge porn...
More options
Context Copy link
Surely "revenge erotic literature", at most.
Erotic literature is still porn and a textual depiction of a private sexual act without the actor's permission is just as much a violation of their rights as a graphical one. The resistance to acknowledging that is simply one more example of people refusing to take male victimization seriously.
Why would this specifically victimize males?
You have a good point here that I hadn't really considered. I jumped from "stereotypical male porn == bad, stereotypical female porn == not (nearly as) bad" to male victimization which doesn't naturally follow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd resist acknowledging that for a female victim too. Text vs visual porn is a significant difference in my mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, it was the OG form of hurting someone's social standing by discussing sex, see Othello etc.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, if I tilt my head sideways, I could kinda see the argument: evil ex telling a lurid and bawdy tale of a prior "conquest" as a way to damage the reputation of someone, and then amp that up with the high profile of this particular case. Still not the central form of the term at all, but...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link