site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think I'm as progressive as anyone and I'm pretty confident I don't believe "that casual sex ... devalues or dishonors [women] in some way." I'm not sure I know any progressives that do believe that. Neither the linked comment nor yours provide any evidence that progressives do believe this so forgive me for being a little skeptical that it's true.

I’d argue that the more or less unstated promise of the Sexual Revolution to young single women was that: a) they will be sexually free without inviting social shame i.e. normalized sexual experimentation and promiscuity on their part will not have an unfavorable long-term effect on men’s attitudes towards them, and women will not sexually shame one another anymore b) they will be able to leave their constrictive gender roles to the extent they see fit, but this will not lead to social issues and anomie because men will be willing to fill those roles instead i.e. men will have no problem becoming stay-at-home dads, nurses, kindergarteners, doing housework etc.

And none of that turned out to be true.

I mean, if you view (a) and (b) as binaries that society is either like or not then sure, we aren't there. But if you view (a) and (b) as spectra that societal norms can be closer to or farther from I think it would be pretty hard to argue we're not much closer to (a) and (b) today than we were pre-Sexual Revolution. Sure, maybe the Sexual Revolution (in the sense of particular events that occurred in the 1960's and 1970's) weren't enough to get us all the way there, but my perception is they started us down this path that we continue on towards those outcomes.

Everyone wants to think the promised revolution ending in utopia will happen in their lifetimes. Almost half of Christians polled by PEW back in 2013 thought Christ would return to Earth in the next 40 years. Naturally it's disappointing when you find out that the fruits of the promised revolution may not be happening while you would be alive to experience them.

I mean, if you view (a) and (b) as binaries that society is either like or not then sure, we aren't there. But if you view (a) and (b) as spectra that societal norms can be closer to or farther from I think it would be pretty hard to argue we're not much closer to (a) and (b) today than we were pre-Sexual Revolution. Sure, maybe the Sexual Revolution (in the sense of particular events that occurred in the 1960's and 1970's) weren't enough to get us all the way there, but my perception is they started us down this path that we continue on towards those outcomes.

I think it's less about the binary/spectrum binary and more about the possible/not possible binary. Placing (a) and (b) in a spectrum still presumes that a society in which (a) (I'll just use "(a)" from now on for brevity) achieved is possible. Or, more realistically, that a society in which we are close to (a) and therefore enjoy some of the fruits of (a) and do not suffer more pains than the fruits due to not quite being at (a), only close to it, is possible.

I suppose I recognize this is substantively a value judgement but I think our current being closer to (a) than we were historically has been clearly worth it.