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 -
I think in part it would be the Just World hypothesis as @The_Nybbler indicated.
But I would also wager it's because almost all moral intuitions are tied into feelings of disgust or distaste which can be 'prerational.'
Consider the Halo Effect, where pretty people are assumed to be more moral, just, good, whatever. Positive affect towards a person in one area flows into positive affect in other areas. A guy who has successfully gotten married and maintained a relationship for years on end could turn out to have been a remorseless sociopath the entire time, but I wager most people would assume they're a good, well-adjusted person merely by seeing that some woman is choosing to show them affection. "If she likes him, he must be alright."
This can also work in reverse. A guy who is maybe less than perfectly handsome and has been single for a while and who complains about it even a little is likely causing a 'disgust' response in others, just enough to lead the onlooker to the conclusion that this person must be morally deficient and/or hiding some repugnant factor about themselves because obviously if they were a good person they'd have a partner already.
This is at least part of the reason why "incel" as an insult implies that the target is also ugly, because apparently being sexually undesirable is enough to justify the fact that people never show them affection/sexual interest.
Now, to stretch my thinking beyond what I can actually support, I think it is simply how people choose to resolve cognitive dissonance and 'manufacture' a consensus about a person's worthiness for affection and social acceptance.
Seeing someone without a partner, especially over the long term, is the sort of signal that nobody else considers them worthy of receiving romantic affection, which is to say they've been 'socially selected' against for a long time. And thus you, as the person who cannot detect any obvious reason for this, must be missing something. And so there's a tendency to jump towards:
And assume that they've got to be at best eccentric and at worst an evil, twisted person who cannot be trusted. So rather than assume that the unseen masses who have previously rejected this guy got it wrong, it's easier to manufacture your own reasons for why they may have done so and resolve your cognitive dissonance in a way that DOESN'T violate the (apparent) group consensus.
Or to put it more bluntly, few people (women especially) want to be the person who 'takes a chance' on the weirdo reject even if there is literally ZERO articulable reason for why he is worthy of scorn, because social reality means this is a risky chance to take, as you could cause the group to turn against you as well.
More options
Context Copy link