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 -
Even with this disambiguation, I'm still not buying it. The phrase "low-status men" is kind of ambiguous, so I want to focus on the specific question of "who presents a greater risk of violent rape to a woman - an 'incel' or a sexually active man?" because the debate started with the claim that women think incels are evil specifically because they think they're rapists (or because they think they're more likely to be rapists than non-incels).
The Intersection of Men’s Sexual Violence Perpetration and Sexual Risk Behavior: A Literature Review:
The review is really long but I think I've made my point.
"Women think incels are evil because they think incels are more likely to be rapists" may be a factually true assertion, but several people in this thread seem to think that this belief is well-founded. It isn't. The more sexual partners a man has, the more likely he is to engage in risky sex, the more likely is to have concurrent sexual partners, the more women he's fucked on the first date, the more prostitutes he's had sex with - the greater the risk he is of committing sexual harassment and violence. Based on this evidence, women have far less to fear from the average incel than they do from a guy who has plenty of notches on his bedpost.
More options
Context Copy link