@SSCReader's banner p

SSCReader


				

				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 04 23:39:15 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 275


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
SSCReader


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 23:39:15 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 275


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top New Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think this is wrong as well. You're correct that, faced with a moral vacuum, people are reinventing restrictive sexual ethics. Unfortunately, it's not the same sexual ethics, either in abstract principles or in the concrete methods of enforcement. These ethics aren't actually grounded on community, they aren't coherent, and their enforcement is both more capricious and less constrained than the old ways. The new method isn't long-term stable; the contradictions just thrash each other and everyone nearby endlessly.




What they are targeting may well be different, but the underlying practices of sub judicial social sanctions are pretty much identical. With the scope extended via easier communications and social media.


"Female entertainers would most likely not have male relatives on-hand to provide retribution, since if they were still enjoying such protection they wouldn't be working as female entertainers."


Yes but being an entertainer is high status now at least at the level they were interacting with C.K. (The Chris Rock Show and so on) so projected back they would be fairly low status in a fairly high status field themselves otherwise we are not controlling for social status in the comparison. This would of course be more constrained but perhaps they would be secretaries at a newspaper with C.K. the editor at another more influential paper or similar. And the fact it wasn't universal is moot because it isn't universal now either. There are surely many people who have masturbated in front of others in some mildly related work setting that we never hear about.


Whether the rules now are more capricious or coherent or whether their enforcement is stable doesn't mean it isn't the same phenomenon. Indeed the old version wasn't long term stable either as evidenced by it being overturned in many places.


You can certainly make an argument that the new version is worse or less understandable or more confusing I think, but so would the older version as you travel between locations and communities (as you yourself point out), the near instant communication we have now, means all those different versions are clashing all the time (online at least). My local hardware store still isn't going to fire someone using the rules of a progressive big city but according to his own local community.


I would certainly agree that a more stable version is definitely easier to navigate for everyone, but that would require (given the above) a very widespread one sided victory (including internal tribal variances) which I just don't see happening anytime soon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I would point out again Sanderson isn't actually being burned at the stake. So i think the argument that they are just as bad right now is not proven.


And again if Bob punches Joe, even if people think punching people is wrong they are usually ok with Joe punching back. The Church has no-one to blame for this other than itself (or God I suppose). Reaping what ye sow and all that.


If you push enough groups of people to the fringe such that the fringe becomes another power centre in and of itself, this is what will happen if they can rally enough support against the prior "evil" empire.


Now I heavily suspect this lesson will not be learned and things will flip once more, but we aren't anywhere near the worst previous excesses, so religous complaints right now just sound like a case of sour grapes to me.


Wokism will I think schism and shatter like Christianity did, though its less centralized so how that looks may well be different. And probably for the same reasons, corruption, power grabs and over reaching.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's mostly accessible to mothers sure, but not necessarily because of safe haven laws themselves. And fathers in certain circumstances can access them, but it will be rarer. A father where the mother died in childbirth and so on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Safe haven laws as far as i can tell don't specify which parent can use them. So men can use them its just much less common.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 29, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm an atheist so as far as I am concerned, both a Muslim and the pope believe very similar fairy tales, so it would make very little difference to me. Having said that, given I am not Catholic it's not up to me. If Catholics want a Muslim pope then yes they should be allowed to do it. It's a private organization that can choose whoever it wants to be its leader. If they don't want a Muslim Pope (and I imagine they do not) then that is also entirely within their rights.


Or to put it more clearly what do you mean by "allowed"? Allowed by whom?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You can tell that's the strategy being used because the response to "why is this teacher showing my kids porn and telling him he'd look sexy in a dress" is "woah, how is that any different than promoting patriotism, tu quoque!"




Yes, and that is why using groomer as an attack is effective and I have no issue with it. If I still worked in politics and worked for the Republican party I would certainly be encouraging its use. It is rhetorically impactful.


However here, we are supposed to try and pull back the curtain on the culture war and discuss it, rather than wage it. I am certain some people are defending actions that are wrong, just due to ingroup bias and tribal thinking. But that doesn't mean the vast majority of teachers who are trying to (as they see it) protect vulnerable kids from abusive parents are groomers.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Yes exactly. If a bunch of people move into the neighborhood and then all collectively decide that they want to bulldoze the houses they own and build condos, that’s what they get to do.




And when they vote to bulldoze YOUR house and build condos invoking eminent domain, because they have more votes than you?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Absolutely, above someone was arguing it was basically a coin toss on who to believe. I argued they were underestimating the likelihood of his innocence given the evidence.


I want Avellone to be innocent, hes been involved in some of my favorite games, and i would like him to get back to it.


But here of all places we should try to be clear about when we know things and when we can just be fairly, very or almost sure.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To be accurate we don't KNOW he didn't do it. We just know he won a court case about it, so that his accusers (or their attorneys) had to draft said statement, which contradicts their earlier statements.


That may well mean he didn't but could mean there wasn't enough proof etc.


Just like people being found not guilty does not actually mean they are not guilty.


It does mean he should be treated as innocent though you probably still wouldn't want to find out your daughter was dating him.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well if you admit that is exactly what you are trying to do, it isn't unrelated is it?


Remember we are here to discuss the culture war not wage it. If you are trying to persuade society here 1) This is not the venue for that. 2) You'd be better off somewhere with significant "normie" presence.


Its absolutely fine to use arguments as soldiers, but at the very least here you should be upfront about that.


Hence my meta commentary.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


then that renders the provisions about direct economic harm superfluous.




No it just specifies who gets to decide who has suffered economic harm. It specifically does not attempt to define what direct economic harm might be, just farms it out to the secretary. If the Secretary said these people did not suffer economic harm but I will still forgive their debt, he does not fulfill the law.


I agree that it allows a Secretary to act in bad faith and pretend they think some people are directly harmed, which is why I would not have written the law like that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe you're an outlier but history shows us people will do a lot to avoid being ostracised. Fear and shame are strong motivators and every cohesive society uses them liberally. Because they work on most people.


We learn them as kids very early. You'll get mocked for having the wrong shoes or being a nerd, or nowadays not being a nerd, and most people react by publicly at least going along with it. Not everyone of course, but enough.


People here are likely to be more contrarian than average, but for most people thesectools are extremely effective.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But when you threaten self-harm if I don't buy into your delusional framework, you're either too ill to get to make those decisions for yourself (and need to be committed and treated for general suicidal ideation separate from your gender issues), or you're an abusive piece of shit.




Again though largely, they are not themselves threatening to commit suicide themselves. They are saying if you do X or don't do Y, it increases the likelihood of some trans people committing suicide. Whether the person saying that is or is not trans themselves does not have any bearing on the truth of that statement.


If they say if you don't do X I specifically will kill myself then that is a different statement.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Again you're going up against biological reality. The one person that is definitively the parent is the one who gave birth. Given that means fathers usually have to be registered particularly in the non married situation most common and that safe haven laws are the politicians response to heat when sympathetic often post partum mothers got prosecuted for abandoning new born babies mostly soon after birth then again there is no reason mothers and fathers should be treated the same.


The issues with safe haven laws stem from the biological reality that the first parent acknowledged is going to be the mother. It isn't symmetric.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Remember we're looking at incentives. Sure the woman gets to decide if the baby happens or not, but the father still faces no direct repercussions from that.


The fact each woman in my pump and dump scheme gets to decide if they want to go through an abortion or not doesn't impact me directly. Without child support I can merrily do it as much as i like.


For there to be incentive for me not to do that, I must have some extra thing at stake. Me not getting to choose puts me back where I was. There has to be something beyond that. Something that can have a direct negative impact on me.


That used to be perhaps social pressure and the risk of a shotgun wedding or a beating from the womans family whose virtue was "spoiled". Now its child support.


All of those solutions recognise the man has no direct negative incentive to curb his behavior while the woman does (which doesn't mean all women do or will of course and birth control can reduce the risk of said disincentive).


If I sleep with zero women I have no kids, if I knock up 50 women and they all choose abortion I am no worse off than when I started. So that isn't a disincentive. Thats just allowing the women to undergo x to get back to the status quo. If I don't have to risk anything then, my behavior is not disincetivised. And given sex is fun and the urge to procreate, (especially if i don't have to do any work on raising the kids) my incentive is probably to keep doing it. The negative incentive needs to be high on a societal level.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Those children become the state's responsibility as well but nobody cares about the hypocrisy.




That's because safe haven laws are there to stop women dumping unwanted babies who will then die. They have different goals. Remember the legal system is not monolithic. It has been built by people with varying goals and ideas, who have assembled a patchwork of interlocking systems at different times, from different parties and different ideologies.


Having said that, do note, that the other parent may be able to petition for custody and in some states the State must specifically check with the other parent before revoking parental rights. It does vary by state. So it is not necessarily true that the father does not get to choose to keep the child.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
They were what? Note some of the non-Catholic Churches burned down were on reservations/native land as well. So how much increased risk Catholic churches have over churches in general still isn't clear.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 26, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The company you keep is an entirely different claim than a causal one though.  And i'm not sure from the point of political coalition how useful it even is. It is when you look at things personally of course.


I understand that the average neo-liberal Republican is probably not too worried about abortion, but because of the way their coalition is built the evangelical Christian wing is.


But if i oppose banning abortion, pragmatically my best option might be to peel that coalition apart. Not force it closer together. Horse trading is the life blood of politics. Maybe you aren't exactly in favor of gay marriage, but if it guts the support of a coalition opposing you, then if you think its going to happen anyway you might as well get the credit.


The next Labour government with a reasonable majority was going to legalize gay marriage. Just a matter of time. This way, the Conservatives get to claim that forever. Now if you really hate the idea of gay marriage maybe that isn't worth it. But pragmatically taking credit for something that was going to happen anyway can be one way to defang your enemies.


Politically in the US, if Republicans could pass a gay marriage bill in exchange for robbing momentum (through a whole bunch of activists no longer worrying about it), for further change and in exchange for getting say 8 years of dominance it doesn't matter about the company those activists kept until then. Exploit the weakness in the coalition.


Of course if you don't think that will work,  or it will lose you more than you gain then don't do it, but don't let thinking about coalitions like individuals cloud your judgement. Political coalitions aren't friends, they are alliances of convenience  and those can be changed. Japan once sided with Nazi Germany, now it is a close US ally. White rust belt Americans used to skew Democrat. By your lights should their change not be accepted because of the company they used to keep?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 29, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm confused by your choices of examples then. No-one is born Catholic. It has to be chosen. Baptism, Confirmation and receiving the Eucharist are I think the steps one must officially take. Presumably then you feel there should be no Pope at all, Muslim or otherwise?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But what if teachers did want to have sex with kids and did try to influence them to have sex with them?




Then that would be bad and then be grooming yes. Adults should not have sex with children, so I would oppose it on those grounds.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If justices are capable of reading "shall not be infringed" as "can be infringed to an arbitrary degree",




Almost everyone believes that though, they just vary on what degree, as far as I can tell. I haven't found a 2A advocate in person who thinks prisoners in prison should be allowed to bring rifles in with them, for example (though there probably are some), and quite a lot think felons even after release should not be allowed them. So as per the old saw, all we're really doing is haggling over how much infringement there should be, most people seem to agree that infringement is indeed required in some degree.


If almost immediately after being written, in order to function your society has to add the unspoken caveat, well except people in jail obviously, and the clearly mad, and, and and. Then you're just admitting from the get go, that it doesn't actually mean exactly what it says. You're just haggling over the price from then on and logically once you have admitted that it is flawed, then that makes it much easier to ignore. The right was neutered from the beginning because it was written for theory not for practice.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ah lets clarify, pursuing a longterm relationship at work has risks but probably worth it.


But pursuing multiple short term entanglements at work exponentially increases the risks of some sort of fallout.  Plenty of people do it of course,  but the more break ups the more times you are rolling the dice.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But that wasn't your specific claim. I agree it is entirely fine for them to have an issue with playing with a trans player.


But I was rebutting your specific claim which was about being trans being a mockery of God, which i am pointing out is not really supported by Christianity itself. If you are withdrawing from that claim to the lesser one about having religous issue with it, i would consider that accurate and agree with you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
See above for a similar reply, but yes basically. Sinful yes. A mockery of God, no. Just like murder can be sinful but isn't mocking God.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Trying to persuade someone by making an argument, is not culture war.






Selectively applying a meta argument to only one side of the conversation, when it fits both equally well, is.




You said: "Yes, and I'm in the process of persuading society that there should be no consequences for this particular thing, Do you mind?"


You are indeed trying to impose a social norm. A social norm against doing something is still a social norm after all.


You also said: "Your right to believe you're a cat ends at my right to not be forced to say "heeereee kitty, kitty, kitty!" when I see you. This applies to all other identities. Muslims don't have to recognize me as a Muslim, the Japanase don't have to recognize me as a Japanaese, etc."


But then as you point out yourself, you are actually trying to influence people. Using your own analogy, you are trying to convince Muslims that they do not have to recognize someone as Muslim. Even though you recognize that your statement about rights is false as you recognize the truth is that you have to persuade society to grant you those rights, You again: "Yes, and I'm in the process of persuading society.." using statements you know to be false in order to persuade people is a textbook culture war tactic, and generally there is nothing wrong with that. It's a time honoured political and rhetorical technique. When I worked in politics I did it myself plenty of times. In the service of a goal you believe in I don't even think it is morally wrong.


But here in this space we are supposed to avoid doing that. And I see a lot of signs that we are getting worse at avoiding that. Just to be clear, I don't think people should be forced to use pronouns or cat names or whatever. I don't want to try to persuade you to change your position. I want to try and preserve the norm here that we do our very best to not use those techniques on each other, so that we can discuss not wage.