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 game" is unfair either way. It will never be fair as long as we are mammals with certain sexual instincts. Hear me out.
What you are objecting is a situation where the unfairness becomes explicit instead of implicit. But this is a horribly bad strategy!! If you are not a "gigachad" and/or "absolute player" type of guy, this is exactly what you want! When the rules of the game becomes more explicit it gives more chances to people who lack the deep social instincts for playing the implicit game. And forgive me for stereotyping, but I have literally never met an Indian guy (from India proper) who had very strong instincts in this regard and I know many.
When ladies get cheap booze explicitly from the bar there is less expectation on you to do the classic move of introduce yourself with confidence, say a couple witty funny things, and ask what she wants to drink. For some guys this is second nature. For many this is nerve wrecking and they will fuck it up. If you are in the group that gets the nerves from approaching a pretty girl like this then you should absolutely welcome a ladies night. It takes some pressure off you.
This is the exact reason why dance classes, blind dating, formal courtship, even arranged marriages etc are all good strategies for men too awkward to just ask a girl out from zero. Each one of these options add an extra dose of explicitness to the interaction.
I have a girlfriend, and even when I didn't, I have little issue in acquiring one, so I genuinely couldn't care less about the marginal change from killing something so explicitly anti-egalitarian.
The constitutions of most liberal democracies, including India and the US, explicitly enshrine equal rights for both men and women, including a ban on explicit and intentional discrimination for or against each. I protest each and every deviation from that rule, be it women getting free drinks, or preference in college admissions, and I'd do the same for men.
Ladies nights are simply one of the more blatant and commonplace violations, and clear violations to boot. I don't need reminder that I, as a man, am inherently less valuable than woman, and I'm content to have it stamped out and establishments who engage in it made an example of. There's already so much implicit discrimination which can't be stamped out that I won't tolerate more explicit forms.
I simply care more about equality of opportunity than equality of outcome, so this argument doesn't sway me. I prefer men and women pay the same amount for the same product, namely time in a bar or drinks, and then what they do with it is up to them, be it the former simping over the latter and handing them theirs.
“I refuse to entertain the subtleties of life because some people some time ago came up with some legal principles on which I shall base my entire thought process” isn’t a very good jumping point for a conversation or deliberation. But you do you
There's a subtle but important distinction between liking certain principles and "basing my entire thought process" around it. I simply think your "subtleties" are too contrived to be really worth entertaining.
But yes, I'll continue doing myself, thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link