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 -
Yours is a good post.
But probably my message and what I wanted to say was not so clear; I am not condemning the logic behind the capital gender reasoning, because it is perfectly fine.
I offer a helpful? refinement that should cut down on the previous polemic. Most of the women I know don't act like what "their gender" should predict from a naive analysis (true for some of the men I know, too), and what someone's gender [in the capital/labor sense] is tends to be a collision of a bunch of personality traits in the same way a discrete electron orbiting an atom is more properly described as a probability density, so I just figured I'd go one level deeper and it seems to work.
Or maybe I'm just making excuses. Take progressive thought to its logical conclusions controlling for expressions of anti-social intent and action being different between the genders, remember that the female tendency to do nothing and hide under the bed from any risk whatsoever is just as destructive and deadly as anything males get up to, add a generous helping of "your rules, fairly", and you'll get most of the way to a workable argument. You're still not going to convince a womanist because "man bad woman good" is an intractable [bad] faith argument, but you already know that anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link