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 -
Most people, male or female, operate on the principle of "what's good for me is good simpliciter, and what's bad for me is bad simpliciter". When evaluating any ideology, philosophical theory, or political system, the most important question is always "what's in it for me?". Only a relatively small number of people are able to break out of this type of thinking and evaluate things more objectively. In keeping with the general trend of women clustering more tightly around the psychological average, I would be willing to believe that women are somewhat more prone to this type of thinking than men are; but in most cases that will be hardly worth bringing up, because most men are prone to it too.
You may be able to better understand the responses you're getting from women if you look at things from their perspective. If someone said "I have this idea for an alternative political system where men will not be allowed to own property or assets, they will be barred from most careers and schools simply on account of being male, and they will not be allowed to control their own bank account separate from their wife's", how do you think most men would react? Maybe you can do the 150 IQ big-brained Rationalist routine and say "that sounds unappealing to me on a personal level, but I'm willing to hear out the rest of your proposal and make a holistic evaluation once I have considered all relevant information". But most men wouldn't react that way. They would just say "what? No that sounds dumb, I don't want that. No I don't care about the abstract spiritual benefits of living in accordance with natural law. Go away."
Same thing is happening here.
The difference isn't that men are more objective, it's that men are more hopefully or narcissistically certain of their own unique special superiority. A vanishingly small percentage of men name time periods by Rawlsian veils of ignorance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link