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 -
The aversion we have to executing women is once again an example of how the environment our intuitions developed in means that some of them are maladaptive in the modern world.
It absolutely makes more sense to execute the childbearing age women instead of fighting age men. The men you just need to hold in jails for 20 years after which they will age out of violence, however the women will continue pumping out more kids who eventually grow into either fighting age men or new childbearing age women who can then pump out more fighting age men and so on.
I think we have an aversion to executing such women (and I too have this aversion, my limbic system makes me feel a visceral repulsion to this that I don't feel towards executing fighting age men) because in the olden days the victors would take the women as spoils of war for themselves after executing the men, and doing so would allow the winning tribe to grow faster than it would do if it had just killed the women, hence favouring the development of a revulsion to killing women that isn't present for killing men. These days we rightfully frown on raping/taking as additional wives captured women and so this benefit to the winning society is no longer present, but the downsides are still there. Hence in the modern system it does make more sense long term strategically to eliminate the women (akin to economic damage through bombing factories in a war) more so than it does to eliminate the men (akin to killing enemy soldiers on the frontline).
However this line of thinking makes even me go "ick" deep down and I wouldn't want to see it happen at all. My estimation of Israel as a polity would go down a lot if they did something like this. Alas, I too am human, all too human...
Male disposability uber alles; our hindbrains tell us that women are wonderful, innocent, and have inherent value.
Women can be easily integrated into a neutral absorbing tribe, such as Ukrainian women merrily living their best Tinder lives in Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic.
This would perhaps only go double for a hostile conquering tribe. It’s been well-hypothesized that the female propensity for Stockholm Syndrome is an adaptation for better war-bride acclimation.
No coercion or rape even needed.
I believe there’s a 4Chan screenshot (a most rigorous citation) that pointed out, historically and prehistorically, women would see their boyfriends, husbands, brothers, fathers killed in war, but then shrug it off and have the children of the conquerors.
French women with German soldiers in WW2 could be an example.
It might be their pre-war wish, isn't an argument that integrating hostile Palestinian women would be easy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's some extraordinary biopolitics.
If Israel ever stoops that low and in a visible way (it won't), I'll at least get the pleasure of watching American Christians indignantly mutter something about justified retribution or whatever when I ask them why forced sterilization in Xinjiang by godless Chicoms is wrong but this isn't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link