site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31670 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022

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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My guess on the condoms is that girls doing it out of desperation rather than as a trendy lifestyle thing are the ones getting fucked by Poxy Steve for $40, and take appropriate precautions. The lifestylers doing it for fun (paid threesomes, say, to shove in the partner thing) can be more selective.

It's been a long time since I took stats, is there a word for that? Using an ejection seat is positively correlated with dying in a plane crash because only men flying riskier aircraft in dangerous situations use ejection seats, etc. If everyone's risks are perfectly calibrated, you'll get no correlation at all between precautions taken and outcome, only correlation between overall risk factors and precautions taken.

If the link to the raw survey data is correct, here's the replies on condom use:

I typically don’t - 8.3%

For genital or anal penetration - 61.2%

Above options + oral, when giving - 16.5%

Above options + oral, when giving and receiving - 7.9%

I don’t perform any of the above activities - 4.1%

PIV + oral when giving always, + oral when receiving as I feel like it – 0.4%

Depends on the price. $300 is condom, if they pay more then no condom. No protection for oral ever – 0.4%

All services are covered – 0.4%

Some of the replies are one person only, so I do see the objections about inadequate sample size. 8% is more than I would expect to never use condoms but maybe they have regular clients and are aware of STI status. I agree with sliders1234 below - I doubt she's getting replies from streetwalkers (that seemed to be part of the salt in the comments about sex workers who exclusively see clients in person not book online) so the lower end of the market isn't being represented here. If we're talking about prostitutes who charge hundreds of dollars per hour, that's for the higher end of the market and that makes sense as regards (1) slimmer prostitutes make more money and (2) STI risk is covered either by both client and prostitute are regularly tested and only work when disease-free.

The lower paid ones who work in-person can be fatter but also need to be more careful around condom use since they're seeing random guys with no idea who is going to give them the clap.

I don’t know her methodology but I highly doubt she even has access to $40 streetwalker types in the study. I would guess these are online whores who atleast can make a website.

I imagine even the stereotypical streetwalker has some form of online prescense, although that could just be through their pimps.

Ya there are still Craigslist type cites around but I still highly doubt those are the ones in her survey.

Also possible that girls who don't require condoms are such extreme outliers it doesn't have much correlation with anything.

After taking a closer look, this seems to be the case. More than 90% use a condom.

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