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 -
Sorry to be graphic, but as a logistical matter, it's very hard to imagine how Trump could have inserted his penis into her vagina while she was both 1. standing up and 2. actively resisting him. In this scenario as written, he has his hand with fingers in a V-shape at her crotch, surrounding her vagina, and then he sort of squats down while maintaining pressure against her crotch, in order to thrust upward with his penis through his open fingers. At the same time, he is supposed to be pinning her against the wall with his shoulder. The shoulder of the same hand or of the other hand? At one point he grabbed both her arms and pinned her against the wall, but then he is using his hands to undress himself and putting one hand between her legs. Is she still resisting at this moment or not?
As written, the whole thing just seems impossible, it could have happened if she "gave up" at some point, but it could not have happened in the way she describes.
Yeah, it's the logistics of it that I find difficult. As someone who has worn tights, unless he flipped her round, it's very hard to see how he could have inserted his penis into her vagina while pulling them down unless he ripped/tore them so he could part her legs sufficiently. I think, but I'm not sure, that an earlier version of the story was that he digitally penetrated her, which is more plausible, but if you're going to claim rape then you probably need penile penetration as the event. Though a judge said that Carroll saying she was raped, even if the jury found that was not the crime, was substantially true so maybe you just need to pick the right target and "he looked at me with lust in his eyes, I was raped" is good enough for an NY judge?
Carroll testified that her tights were not removed or ripped. He allegedly forced a kiss on her, and I don't see any description of flipping her around.
She said she was wearing four inch heels; I don't know if that would improve or worsen the angles.
Well I wasn't there so I can't say, but if she's allegedly having her tights forcefully pulled down while she's resisting and he's attempting to put tab A into slot B, then.... I can't see how she gets away with that, when simply pulling on a pair of tights the wrong way can ladder them for me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's more like if you're found to have sexually assaulted a woman, and she says you raped her, then the difference between those two actions is not big enough for you to be allowed to sue her for defamation. The judge did not do any independent fact-finding of his own, he was bound to accept the jury's verdict.
This seems to have been the jury's assessment as well. They said he didn't rape her but did sexually assault her, which is consistent with a finding that he stuck his finger in her but not his penis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link