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 -
Who could he have called as a witness? It’s a 30 year old case. She can’t even say what year it happened. He can’t produce some dude who could testify I was at dinner with him on the alleged incident.
IMO there is something strange with changing statute of limitation decades later even if this wasn’t completely about Trump.
Plus any potential witness they called would be liable to face non-stop legal action from the state of New York.
This is the thing I keep coming back to, and it's the same thing that pissed me off about the Kavanaugh hearings, where the accusations were repeatedly framed as "credible". OK, it's true that the accusations aren't impossible and the accused surely can't disprove them, so that does meet some definition of "credible". I would probably agree that it rises to the level of extending some degree of empathy towards the putative victims, particularly if you're actually going to personally interact with them. Nonetheless, what the hell is the accused expected to do in such a situation?
When I think of parties that I was at, women that I did hook up with, women that I didn't hook up with, and so on, I have absolutely no idea how I could even begin to refute a claim about something that supposedly happened 20 years ago. Was I at a given person's house on an unspecified day in an unspecified year, drinking heavily? I don't know, possibly. Probably even, for some specified houses and date ranges. Could I account for who was there on a given unspecified evening? Definitely not. Are there women that I had sex with at the time that I only barely remember now? Definitely so. Are there others that were present that I won't recall at all? Definitely so. With lack of specificity that seems to still count as a "credible accusation", I don't see any plausible path to actually being able to disprove it. At that level, it actually sounds entirely reasonable to start bringing things up like, "she's not my type" or "wait, you're saying that this happened in a dressing room and no one at all noticed?". The accused can't really deny the time and place because there is no time and they may have gone to that place, but they can take a stab at whether the story seems actually plausible at all.
It depends on what other evidence is available at the time. If there's a recording of you talking about how you like to grope women because they'll just let you do it, it might be enough to move the needle to 51% in a pure he-said-she-said.
More options
Context Copy link
From Trump “she’s not my type” does seem credible. If you say the quiet part out loud that she was older than he would go for.
And embedded in this a lot of girls still expect guys to be the aggressor. I still remember the first love of my life rejecting my advances as I dropped her off at her place and saying no a dozen times. And then sending me a text 10 minutes later asking why I didn’t sleep with her. Which isn’t completely related but does apply to a lot of trump comments.
Trump does seem like someone who’s a believer in the alpha male stereotype where he should be the aggressor and no doubt a lot of women have rewarded him for that. So he very well may have been intimate with the accuser. Something completely not explored (because of it’s 30 years ago) she may have been into his assertiveness. But now that he’s a white supremacist, racists, anti-trans politician it’s rape.
It would have been credible had he not misidentified her as Marla Maples in a photograph during a deposition.
That was a very funny blunder from the deposition. The best explanation on this front remains that Donald Trump is functionally blind. He frequently misidentifies people right in front of him and all the notes he's seen actively using are written in a comically large font size. I don't really understand exactly why a billionaire can't use contact lenses, lasik, or whatever other space age vision technology is available, but it's funny how much legal liability he's willing to endure just to avoid being filmed wearing glasses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Most agentic young woman.
Girls/women are often indeed extremely passive when it comes to dating. I hope you sealed the deal, whether by immediately turning back to her place or by eventually somehow slow-rolling it. Such experiences are pretty common, though, hence their contribution to the coffee emoji meme spreading like wildfire.
A lot of times, a “no” from women just means try harder, try differently, or try later such that they can better protect their wonderfulness, maintain plausible deniability, and sidestep accountability. So that they can tell themselves and/or their friends that “omg it just happened, teehee.”
Chad pussy-grabbers vs. Virgin boundary-respecters.
It’s why there was so much seething and pearl-clutching from the online-left over Trump saying to just “grab ‘em by the pussy.” Trump stumbled upon something, inadvertently touching a third rail.
Such a remark from Trump was a reminder that high status men can just go full steam ahead and plow through the “rules” that lower status men have to abide by—and that women, ultimately, are happy to be submissive to things like male status and fame in the moment, even if they may retrospectively decide otherwise. Sometimes years or decades later, if the original encounter occurred at all.
Mainstream progressivism insists that male sexual success is driven by the extent to which men are dutiful, respectful male feminist allies. High-status men casually grabbing women by the pussy or creampie-ing them in the stairwell ruins the illusion of male sexual egalitarianism, the illusion of lack of female hypergamy, the illusion of a magical Just World where male sexual success is dictated by whether they have socially progressive attitudes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Kavanaugh was strange enough that he not only made a calendar showing what he was doing each day, but he kept it. It still wasn't enough to disprove the allegations because they weren't actually specific enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is one of the reasons for a SOL — evidence becomes very stale.
More options
Context Copy link
Also I suppose now the witness could be sued for perjury if they stood by their testimony after losing the case.
Perjury isn't a civil offense, so no.
Right, I meant slander.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
According to my high-school history teacher: the British would actually do this in the 1700s. Accuse someone of a crime, force them to testify, find them guilty, then punish them for lying since they just claimed they didn't do it. Providing a robust defense was merely lying to the court and punished accordingly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link