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 -
'Alone' is a key part of this, that's what the forest is there to imply. Obviously women feel safer on a street with 10-20 men than alone with a bear. Presumably they think that if one decides to attack them, the others will help them out or are at least supposed to help them. At least in daytime.
If men are so bad, why would having more of them around help? If a majority of men decided to use violence to subjugate women, it would be easily accomplished since men are more violent, better at organizing violence and are stronger.
Alternate thought from Devon Eriksen - they are humblebragging about being so desirable that men want to rape them while trying to preserve their compassionate credentials: https://twitter.com/Devon_Eriksen_/status/1785673620729073911
I think this is part of it. As a man, the value proposition of raping a woman alone in the woods seems pretty low. Momentary thrill but what do you do next? Leave her alive to report you? Kill her and bury the body? What happens when people come looking for her and find traces? You'd really need to be very impulsive or intoxicated by beauty to think this was a good choice of action.
It’s because men and their shittiness cancel each other out when there’s a group of them :nailpolishemoji:
It makes sense if one is accustomed to expecting men to white knight against other men on your behalf, or if one’s mental model of the world is heavily influenced by media, memes, and tropes. Conservation of Ninjitsu: One man is a deadly threat, but an army of them is just a sea of potential simps and orbiters, ATMs and meatshields.
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, I’m feeling like an idiot, but I think you answered this in the previous paragraph, so I’m confused why you’re asking it rhetorically.
I believe women think they're safe in situations with many men, yet they say they're afraid of men when they're alone with just one man. Yet many men and 'society' generally is just a clump of single men. If men are bad alone why would they be good together?
It doesn't really matter, I'm overthinking and over-rationalizing this. Realistically there are fundamental differences in the purpose of language and epistemology going on here.
You can kind of see the differences here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1cf34fy/wife_asks_husband_would_you_rather_our_13_year/
Because of the binomial distribution? If 1/6 men are secretly pure evil, so each individual man is Russian roulette, then a clump of just 5 random men gets the odds of evil ones outnumbering good down to 1/28, and a society of as few as 99 men gets us down to about 1 in 100 trillion.
Or just because of the multiplication rule in probability? If 1/6 men are secretly mostly evil (they'll commit a rape in a he-said she-said scenario but they won't kill unfavorable witnesses) then even a clump of 5 random men has the odds of unanimously-evil down to 1/7776.
And if individual men aren't quite as risky as Russian roulette, the risks get pushed down even faster in groups. A rate of 1% for individuals (now each individual man is a mere climb to the summit of Everest) now becomes 1/100,000 or 1/10,000,000,000 in a group of 5.
More options
Context Copy link
It's funny to me how both sides of the battle of the sexes will endorse the Mike Pence rule, while also mocking the other side for adopting it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's an interesting post from Devon Eriksen and certainly worth some food for thought.
I feel like his claim that women claim men want to rape them to signal desirability is a bit of a stretch though. I think it's more likely they are conditioned from birth to think that about of men rather than it being some hidden ploy to boost their social worth by indicating desirability. They might be boosting social worth by showing they agree with whatever society says it's good to signal.
Taking his thoughts to their logical conclusion, women will also vote in a way to signal social status, not vote for what is would be best for them/family/society, which means women should not be allowed to vote. Certainly more to be said about this although I'm pretty sure it's already been discussed ad nauseam.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link