Post of the Week Nominations Thread

hyperrreal · 2016-08-20T15:56:26+00:00

disposable_pants · 2016-08-20T01:20:30+00:00

/u/cryogenetik for her even-handed appraisal of feminism:

I identify as a Feminist and I think the biggest issue with the movement is that we're talking about issues as if they're solvable through writing new laws when a majority of Feminist issues are social/cultural ones. Women aren't missing legal rights in the U.S. (assuming we follow through with fully integrating the military) but there are lots of social influences that work against women. I also acknowledge that there are plenty of social/cultural problems that work against men, it just so happens that the problems men face tend to be focused around sex and family whereas the problems women face are spread more across the board. Plus, men have the benefit of being represented in positions of power for thousands of years whereas women only recently received that power after they did achieve equal rights under the law.

There's a lot of good discussion around this comment, too.

alreadyredschool · 2016-08-20T14:18:50+00:00

Acrolith about some platitude

disposable_pants · 2016-08-20T01:17:28+00:00

/u/Archwinger with his comment about views on stoic men who don't openly display many emotions:

"Real men" can be stoic, traditionally masculine types, too. These guys are no less of a man than your new-age vision of men. If you want to expand the range of acceptable gender norms for men, then great, expand it. But that means that the stoic, detached, strong, in-control men are also valid men, who are filling a role that is perfectly acceptable for a man. Your emotional new-age version of a man isn't any better just because it's a newer option.

tallwheel · 2016-08-23T04:40:48+00:00

/u/Atlas_B_Shruggin Much of the distaste for TRP/RPW(i) stems from non-systematizers seeing systematizers systematize human interaction and being grossed out

alreadyredschool · 2016-08-20T14:19:07+00:00

Me about toxic masculinity

alreadyredschool · 2016-08-20T14:19:01+00:00

BiggerDthanyou about the avoidant douchebag strategy

AutoModerator · 2016-08-20T01:14:15+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

disposable_pants · 2016-08-20T01:14:35+00:00

What is high-quality content?

Here are my ideas; feel free to use your own criteria:

A good faith argument. Are opposing ideas presented as opponents would frame them, or is the poster using a straw man? Is the poster arguing against the intent of an idea or against semantics, edge cases, and technicalities? Bonus points for avoiding cheap insults (e.g. "fucking bloops").
An argument that's backed with evidence. They don't have to supply double-blind studies, but ideally the poster is supporting their ideas with more evidence than "I've seen this in my life so it must be true." Do they have an article included? Are they using solid reasoning to support ideas they don't have direct evidence for? Are they trying to demonstrate a broader pattern or simply offering an anecdote? Bonus points if the point/question/argument is clearly written.
A new topic, or a new take on old topic. Is this fresh content, or just a repackaged version of a post we saw eight times yesterday? If it is an older topic, is the poster at least trying to add a new perspective or angle to it? Bonus points for summarizing (or even linking to) older related posts.

Here are a few examples of what might be considered as high-quality content:

Example 1: This is presented neutrally, involves more evidence than a personal opinion, quotes a relevant part of the source, and isn't a well-worn topic.
Example 2: An older topic, but the poster states a clear question right off the bat and provides useful supporting information.
Example 3: A good example of how a post doesn't need to have linked research to be reasonably supported. It's a slightly different take on a familiar topic, and although no firm evidence is given the poster describes what he's thinking in clear, concise detail.

In short, it's the type of content that leads to more than knee-jerk reactions.

Title	Post of the Week Nominations Thread
Author	disposable_pants
Upvotes	8
Comments	13
Date	August 20, 2016 1:14 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4ymgtm/post_of_the_week_nominations_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/post-of-the-week-nominations-thread.273488 https://theredarchive.com/post/273488

Comments