site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35589 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

2014-Era Neckbeard Shaming is BACK

"These Guys are Just Weird" is the new ad from pro-Kamala super PAC Won't Pac Down. You really do have to watch it to viscerally understand the impact. I am not gifted enough with words to give it justice. It's not clear if this ad will ever air on tv (seems a bit racy for that), but the internet is where modern elections are won or lost.

As grossly offensive as I find the ad, I cannot deny being impressed. Just a few days ago I pointed out that Democrats need better messaging if they want to persuade voters. This kind of appeal to base instinct is exactly what wins elections. The ethos of "when they go low, we go high," sure sounds good at dinner parties, but it likely cost Dems the 2016 election. In some sense, I truly think they were afraid of the sheer effectiveness of Willie Horton. It took Trump to scare them enough to pull out the stops.

It's interesting to see an ad that is so far removed from the actual election. It doesn't even mention any actual candidates (except the speaker of the house, who is not in a competitive election). It's just "those guys suck!" It isn't targeting Trump, or any specific Republican candidate- it's targeting Republican voters.

Like @urquan said, I feel like the ad actually targets men, not women. It seems to be saying "you don't want to be one of those weird creepy Republican guys like these people." One of the main "issues" in the ad seems to be a ban on porn which (a) isn't actually a real issue proposed by anybody and (b) seems like something that would motivate male voters much more than women.

One of the main "issues" in the ad seems to be a ban on porn which (a) isn't actually a real issue proposed by anybody

Quoth the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership:

Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.

Is Trump actually going to try to do it? Probably not. If he does, will it actually be upheld? Almost certainly not. But it has been proposed by somebody.

Ok, yes, "somebody" has proposed it. Just not, you know, Trump, or Vance, or any official Republican platform.

Besides, from the context, it sounds like theyre mostly talking about showing trans stuff to kids? I dont think "educators and public librarians" really show a lot of porn. I know the schools have slipped but i dont think its quite that bad yet...

it sounds like theyre mostly talking about showing trans stuff to kids?

No, it reads exactly like the stock Boomer-trad (or progressive) complaints about it. Narcissism of small differences may be viewed by replacing 'transgender ideology' with 'violence towards women' in the first sentence.

It's a general loser of a proposition and 20th century anti-porn views/laws (including "just restrict the ages") are likely to lose Republicans more male voters than an ad by the other side that calls them creeps will (since all men have heard that one before and have slowly figured out they should ignore that particular complaint).

I don't think "educators and public librarians" really show a lot of porn.

This is only half true with the shitty-Tumblr-tier picture books, the occasional novel that has a sex scene in it, and teachers being in such a rush to get to proselytizing the virtues of gay sex that they forget the overwhelming majority of second grade boys aren't generally in much of a hurry to try this for reasons that are obvious to anyone who remembers second grade (many, I believe, forget on purpose).

There really isn't a positive vision of dealing with the facts on the ground here; porn is a tool like anything else and it's not going back in the box, so you either evolve a strategy to deal with it or you lose. (Maybe instead of complaining constantly about "but for some reason men want to choke or facial their girlfriends the first time" you develop some messaging to point out that sex is give/take like everything else so that young adults are prepared to have better sex and don't have to pile on so many stakes they put off trying to engage with the opposite sex in a romantic fashion long enough that they become content never having tried? Of course, you also have to not hate the concept of young adults having sex to do that, and you can't be a traditionalist or progressive without hating young adults and sex [both will claim "protection of women and children" as an excuse to hate sex- traditionalists hate it when a young men has sex with a woman they feel should have been theirs, progressives hate it when a young women has sex with a man they feel should have been theirs] so it's definitely too much to ask of them.)

Of course, you also have to not hate the concept of young adults having sex to do that, and you can't be a traditionalist or progressive without hating young adults and sex [both will claim "protection of women and children" as an excuse to hate sex- traditionalists hate it when a young men has sex with a woman they feel should have been theirs, progressives hate it when a young women has sex with a man they feel should have been theirs] so it's definitely too much to ask of them.)

This is an absurd misrepresentation of traditionalist views. Trads are perfectly fine with young adults having sex; we just want them to do it inside of marriage.

From "Sexual Principles" by Free Northerner:

There are two biological adults strongly attracted to each other. They have been blessed with strong mutual attraction at a young age, and their families’ response would be to destroy their relationship because of some desire for them to be “abstinent”?

That’s insanity. That’s cruel. That’s borderline satanic.

Here is Paul on the issue:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV)

The proper response, the Christian response, is to get these two young adults married and starting a family.

The modern drive for ‘abstinence’ uber alles is unholy. Some precious few are given the gift of singleness, they should abstain, but most are not given this gift and calling.

God blessed most with a sexual drive and a holy desire to become one flesh with another. To demand abstinence until some point in their 20’s or 30’s from those not given to singleness is cruel, destructive, unrealistic, unbiblical, and satanic. The focus on abstinence hands the devil a strong hold over young adults in which to subvert their holy desires into unholy ones.

One of the major problems with the modern church is the unbiblical emphasis on abstinence. Abstinence should never be an issue in the church. If two Christian young adults want sex with each other, their parents should rejoice and bring them before the altar post-haste.

Is it any wonder the unchurched are repulsed by such a hideous doctrine as abstinence?

And from "In Support of Early Marriage: Why I Hope Our Daughters Will Be Teen-Aged Brides" by Sunshine Mary:

It is our hope that our daughters will marry young, ideally around age 19; I have already begun gently talking to the middle-schoolers about the importance of marriage and taking seriously from an early age the search for a suitable husband.

How young should a girl marry? In most states, according to Teens / Minors Marriage License laws, if you are 16 or 17 years old, you can marry with written parental consent. If you are 15 or younger, you will need both parental consent and the approval of the probate court.

Although I would prefer our daughters to wait until around age 18 to marry, if one of them met a highly appropriate young man, and both of the families were in agreement that they would make a good marriage match, I would consider allowing them to marry at 17, which is the age my mother married my father, who was 19. Sixteen or younger seems very young to me and I would probably encourage them to wait a bit, simply because babies tend to follow marriages. However, if one of our daughters married at 17 and immediately became pregnant, I still don’t think that’s such a big problem; after all, by the time I was 13, I was regularly baby-sitting in the evenings for families with toddlers and babies. Baby-sitting is not as great a responsibility as parenting, of course, but if a girl begins to babysit by 12 or 13, then by 18 she should have enough experience with children to manage one of her own if she is married. Proverbs 17:6 says Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of children is their fathers, so why discourage our children from marrying and having children?

The unrealistic notion of practicing abstinence through high school, college, and beyond is an idea emblematic of boomer cuckservativism, not traditionalism in any meaningful sense.

Of course, you also have to not hate the concept of young adults having sex to do that, and you can't be a traditionalist or progressive without hating sex

I mean, I suppose it depends on what counts as "traditionalist". You don't have to go back all that far to get to "marriage at 12, please fuck a lot so I can have grandkids".

I'm guessing that this is hyperbole but I'm pretty sure that at least in European societies marriage that young was never very common outside royalty/upper nobility (and usually wasn't consummated until later even in those cases).

Marriage at 16-18, on the other hand, is historically pretty common (though not universal).

Very common, perhaps not, but apparently it took until 1753 for Britain to ban marriages at 14 (boys)/12 (girls) without parental consent, and 1929 to raise the age to 16 unconditionally.

Yes, but most of that is out of living memory now (and the edgy people who think we should return to marrying that young tend to be… unusual, to put it politely).

As for me, I see traditionalists as a cluster of people who believe “playing the field is bad and virginity is good because reasons” simply through observing religious Boomers and older.

I couldn't call myself a traditionalist, but isn't the general line that "playing the field is good and virginity is good"? Then the reasons for the former and their implications toward the latter practically name themselves. Date a lot of people before "going steady", and with a little luck you'll probably learn a lot you didn't know about relationships and about your preferences and about how your available choices mesh or don't mesh with you, and hopefully you'll then find a good match to investigate further. Date-and-have-sex-with a lot of people in a world which predates good contraception and antibiotics, and you're basically inviting a plague upon your people, whether because God or just because harsh-economics and STD epidemiology. The reliance upon God for traditionalism today is just because that's the strongest argument left, in a time when "harsh economics" just means that DoorDash is expensive and when even the uncurable STDs are very treatable.

(and the edgy people who think we should return to marrying that young tend to be… unusual, to put it politely)

And to put it impolitely?

Impolitely:

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats