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 -
Trigger warning - this is related to pornographic material
Lily Philips is an onlyfans model who slept with 100 guys in a single day. She is from the UK and does not have the background of a typical pornstar from the looks of it. Popular Youtube video maker Joshua Pieters made a documentary around it with her in it where at one point she just cracks where she gets a hint of what she just did, in trying to sleep with more guys than most friend circles do in a few lifetimes all for the sake of being edgy.
The clip has gained traction and I feel bad about the girl. Some Christian women are asking for her to be forgiven and taken back under gods grace whilst the Tate Brothers asked their followers to go undercover in her gangbang and literally preach the gospel to a cum infested e celeb. Hell this is the first time I have seen either of them show regret for having ran an onlyfans studio.
Lily and her friends have done similar things before but I cannot find any of it since any mention of her name brings up thousands of links about what she did this week. How do you even describe what she did given that she wants to do a 1000 in a day despite breaking down on camera? The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because Riley Reid, another adult entertainer did this too.
edit - removed a question about religiosity, since I think it came off in bad faith which is not my intent at all as a religous person
Not to be rude, and off topic, and I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but I just dont get trigger warnings. Why is "trigger warning: [your trigger here].........[your trigger]" less triggering than [your trigger]? I get "nsfw" on a hyperlink that is risqué or etc., but it is never used this way and pro tw is justified pretty different anyways. But is triggering even a real thing? Is the idea that someone is just so porn addled that they cant even see the words "onlyfans model" lest they just start jerk jerk jerking? Every time I have seen it used, the writer will not cover something (allegedly) traumatic in an callous and likely triggering way. But obviously holocaust_rape_groyper will be covering that topic maximally toxic and awfully and they will not be warning the reader it might trigger them, so what does it even do? It just seems so empty and performative. Especially on a forum to discuss controversial things.
I agree people don't tend to do it here, but in general these days I mostly see people use "content note" instead of "trigger warning" to specify topics that the reader might not want to read without implying that it's specifically about triggers, which are often too random and personal to tag. For instance, I see a lot of posts on Mastodon (which has explicit support for warnings so a post with warnings shows only the warning until you click on it to unfold the full post) with the warning field mentioning "us pol" because enough people on social media don't want to hear about US politics. Additionally, social media generally has a way to filter on keywords (either explicit warnings or just anywhere in the text), so including a straightforward warning can be a way to hope you hit a keyword filter so people who don't want to read something never see it.
But also, it's definitely possible to reference undesired content without describing it in detail. "Gore" or "abusive relationship" gets the point across well enough warn someone without eliciting the response they might have to the actual content. And depending on the warning and the person, it may be sufficient to know it's coming / maybe a part they might want to skim over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link