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 -
I think it's pretty much irrelevant. It's just the classic Grand Theft Auto debate of whether it makes you more likely to engage in violence or not. The general scientific consensus seemed to end up overwhelmingly as "Well, it makes certain indicators of conflict and aggression-oriented cognition more prominent temporarily in the brain, but other than that it's probably neither going to significantly or even really at all affect the probability of you turning into a mass murderer nor being prevented from being one." No amount of GTA was probably going to stop Salvador Ramos from doing what he did (some future Holodeck-like perfectly realistic simulation, maybe, but that's a different story for a time we're not yet in), and no GTA addict is probably going to turn into Salvador Ramos because of it.
Does watching "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" make you more or less likely to want to be a millionaire? Of course the question is nonsensical, because all we know that people are only interested in the premise of the show because they already have an inherent desire, independent of and predating the show, to be a millionaire. (That's implicitly understood by nearly everyone in this case, but applying it to other situations tends to reveal the foolishness behind less commonly agreed upon media controversies.)
The same is true of Grand Theft Auto. People play it and enjoy it because (among other reasons of course) other people kind of suck and it's sometimes fun to imagine just getting to mow a bunch of them down without consequences. Does that mean you're likely to actually do it? Yes if you're predisposed to and no if you're not (same as game shows are unlikely to convince people with a genuinely low natural acquisitiveness that they are suddenly desperate to be rich).
And the same is also true of pedophiles and child porn. The desire predates and drives the search for the content. Same as with GTA, it's going to influence your cognition temporarily, make sexy lolis dancing around in your mind (that is, whatever neurological indicators there are of active pedophilic attraction) more prominent (though, as the characteristic quirk of male sexuality, (for most men anyway) you'll suddenly be totally uninterested in it for at least a bit once you cooooom, a threshold that isn't as hard/visible in regards to violent stimuli). Whether you'll go further than the screen is almost entirely dependent on other factors. And the desire in general is wholly unaffected.
I actually wasn't talking about child porn (which I don't look at anymore, as it's often, in my view, generally inferior in technical quality and erotic character to the more legal stuff which is in great abundance and thus not worth whatever hassles/legal risks are involved in acquiring it, even though those are still relatively minor (at least in likelihood, not in expected downside) with even a small bit of education). I was talking about the abundance of legal but sexualized content of minors all over the Internet. You are correct about child porn though in that even though it's actually fairly easy to find and consume it safely, doing so is still often definitely is too much for many dumb people (particularly young zoomers who often can't do anything technologically if it's not in convenient app form).
Edit: Though I should be clear that I interpreted your question (based on the phrase "desire for real children") as being in regards to one's behavioral inclination to have actual sexual contact with children assuming that circumstances making the opportunity available were already present (that is, if someone would do it or not in the "moment of truth"). Overall, I do think child porn availability likely reduces instances of sexual contact with children via the same mechanism by which porn reduces instances of sexual contact with/between adults (including rape, but also consensual ones): it saps your time/willpower and occupies energy/moments you could otherwise spend pursuing IRL mating activities. It's as true of pedophiles as it is of anyone else.
Going based on my prior analogy, it's like how any amount of time spent watching "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", will, if anything, most likely reduce your chance of actually becoming one, if not just because watching it is not an activity that actually actively productively contributes to the process of becoming a millionaire (in most cases, unless you're training to get on the show and win yourself, but that's a long shot, kind of like claiming that (child or adult) porn is going to train you in how to seduce females and sexually satisfy them, which may occasionally be true for some but only very rarely).
More options
Context Copy link