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 -
Uh, that's not the best way to interpret his statement and ask if he in particular is the guy who would go looking for marriageable homeless women.
Because I'd actually bet that there's probably SOME guys out there desperate enough to take that gamble. They almost certainly exist. The limiting factor is probably that for a woman to end up homeless she probably has mental issues and addiction severe enough to make her incapable of consenting to such a relationship or just simply refuse any offers.
Yeah - schizophrenia can do that. There are exceptions like women fleeing abusive situations and not being able to get IDs and shit like that. There's also homeless people (men and women, but mostly dudes) living on the streets in like Portland who choose to live that way or at least look functional enough to be able to hold down basic jobs and live in apartments. They don't smell, are wearing clean clothes, can hold a normal conversation with you...
More options
Context Copy link
A data point: I linked this article about Aileen Wuornos (the USA's most infamous female serial killer) downthread. The article mentions that as a teenager and young adult, Wuornos was a homeless alcoholic who had numerous run-ins with the law, which did not prevent her from finding a husband at the age of 20. Granted, he took out a restraining order against her a few weeks later and had the marriage annulled, but nonetheless: a homeless alcoholic future serial killer (with a series of convictions under her belt and probably suffering from undiagnosed hereditary schizophrenia) was nonetheless able to find a husband. How many men meeting that description do you think would be able to secure that deal?
Did we ever get a diagnosis for Charlie Manson?
Apparently his initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was controversial: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/1/20/23559781/charles-manson-sharon-tate-psychological-study-andrew-friedman-northwestern-university
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you're going to say "a man who fails is a hopeless loser, a woman who fails can just get married", you have to deal with "and there's an example of a woman who failed".
'Oh women have it so easy and so soft' is a nice complaint, but there are women even the 'failure man' wouldn't touch with a bargepole.
And I think that is simply wrong.
Because no matter how hard up a given woman is there's going to be several guys in exactly the same situation who would absolutely give her a chance because there's no way they're finding anything else.
The stats are what they are, there's more homeless guys than women, so you think even a homeless woman is going to be without 'options' to the extent she has any desire?
Being able to have sex with someone is absolutely not the same thing as being able to marry them and use their resources. This seems like it should be blindingly obvious.
To the extent that she marries a homeless man, they're in the same situation, maybe he'll physically defend her if someone threatens her, but that's about it. "You can just get married" [to a person who's likely even worse off than yourself, and might beat you] is not much of a consolation prize.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link