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 -
Ah come on, Nybbler, we have the concept of impaired consent by reason of drugs, drunkenness, mental state at the time, which doesn't have to reach the level of "so impaired that they need to be under conservatorship".
I'm pushing back against "a man has a right to fuck crazy bitches" with "stick your dick in crazy but don't be surprised what happens after". It's the equivalent of "how was I to know the leopards would eat my face?" If you're having sex with someone unstable because she's easy and will do wild shit in bed, you have no right to be surprised when she later goes on to claim crazy stuff about you.
Some of these tend to be abused rather often, and very one-sided; nobody's going to find him not guilty of rape because he was on drugs or drunk or depressed when he did it, so I view their use in negating consent (except in cases like surreptitious administration of drugs) as special pleading.
A man has no right to fuck crazy bitches (in that said bitches can always refuse) and is properly advised against it. But 'crazy bitches' in that phrase is only vernacular, not psychiatric or legal. If a man does fuck crazy bitches with their consent at the time, claims by said crazy bitches that they didn't consent because they are, after all, crazy bitches with bad judgement, should be laughed out of court.
More options
Context Copy link
The leopards eating my face is about crazy people doing the same thing to you that you like them doing to someone else.
It's not about crazy people doing any crazy thing to you, because all crazy things aren't equal.
Unless the women came on to him with the sales pitch "I falsely accused my boyfriend of rape so I could dump him and be with you" or something similar, this isn't like leopards eating his face.
It's not being too fussy about who you sleep with, even if they are observably unstable, because you don't care and you only want to get your dick wet.
Then the time bomb goes off. And you are all "how could this happen?" Well, it happened because you couldn't keep it in your pants and took a risk, and now the risk has happened.
There is a large difference between something being a bad idea that carries risk, and those risks being a good thing that the rest of society should make worse. There may be cases where it's better to leave people to their fates, but only when the actual costs of doing so are high enough, like if putting up more safety fences or warning labels is too costly compared to the benefit. The obvious topical comparison would be that, if a woman gets raped because of choosing to keep questionable company or choosing to date an abusive man or walking down a dark alley, we still put the rapist in jail if feasible. We certainly don't help domestic abusers on the basis of "you took that risk when you chose to date a crazy person, so society will punish you on the abuser's behalf". Not even feminists creating policies that help female abusers who use accusations of abuse/rape/etc. as weapons generally do so on purpose, they are just biased enough to genuinely think that such accusations from women must be true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Okay. But then these women shouldn’t be allowed to make any decisions (eg they shouldn’t be able to drink, shouldn’t be able to sign contracts, shouldn’t be able to vote). If that isn’t the standard, then they have agency and can consent to sex.
I am at the stage that if people are going to be crying about "this poor 25 year old infant had no agency about the guy she slept with", then yeah - they should not be allowed behave like adults.
On the other hand, for both women and men, there are people it is too risky to sleep with, and if you go ahead and do it because you're too horny or careless or whatever, then it's like running the risks of STIs- you can't be surprised you got a dose of the clap if you've been promiscuous, have not used protection, and have slept around with people who are in impaired states or none too careful about their sexual experiences.
There's allegedly a graffito from Pompeii:
That's where we are. I believe Evan Rachel Wood is the superannuated poster child for this one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes_Chad.jpg
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If we are not willing to let such women suffer the consequences of their mistakes, which we obviously aren't, then they cannot be permitted the freedom to make those mistakes in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link