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 -
A couple of months ago we discussed the cultural legacy of the Playboy mag of all things under an effort post by @FiveHourMarathon. I was reminded of this by a recent lame-ass political scandal in Hungary in which a local/district volunteer coordinator of the main opposition party and apparently a single(?) mom was doxxed by some pro-government journos as a former porner / sex worker. Technically I’m supposed to call her a former porn actress, but the actual level of ‘acting’ that is involved in all of this makes me decide against doing so; supposedly she also appeared in a grand total of one casting video only (by Pierre Woodman) so calling her an actress would be a big stretch either way. Pretty much the only factor fueling this whole thing was that the party leader and MEP was pictured shaking hands with the ‘lady’ during some public events.
What does Playboy have anything to do with this, you might ask? Well, said party leader decided it’d be a swell idea to reverse the accusation of sleaziness and would also be some sort of clever gotcha to point out that a 51-year-old woman who’s a government commissioner and a former ‘Secretary of State for Sports’ (if you’re one of the few female politicians in Eastern Europe, it’s the sort of government position of lesser importance you can ever hope to fulfill, I guess) appeared in a photoshoot in the local edition of Playboy ages ago.
Anyway, I’m aware that culture wars are waged with maximal cynicism, dishonesty and opportunism, and this is a case of culture-warring alright; no need to remind me of that. Still, I found myself asking the rhetorical question: who the heck actually believes that posing for a photoshoot in a completely mainstreamed, slick, high-class magazine which eventually shifted to a women's fashion and lifestyle brand is the cultural/moral/social equivalent of anonymously getting your holes stuffed and swallowing cum/urine on camera for a handful of cash?
They’re equivalent because they’re both equally fine, and both equally unworthy of further attention.
If we're going that route, then we have to also have to come to the conclusion that it is utterly fine for men to ogle up the pages of the high-class magazine with the naked women, AND to be a full-on gooner who consumes hours of porn portraying the aforementioned stuffing of holes and similar levels of degeneracy.
If either of those factors came out about a male politician, then those factors would both be equally unworthy of further attention, for presumably similar reasons as the womens' conduct wasn't worthy of attention.
I'm sure we could hash out some set of circumstances where it was not fine. Lets say there's a Married mother of children who does porn without the knowledge of her husband, and not only does this trigger emotional distress for the husband, it can also nuke his reputation and lead to a divorce fight over the kids.
Since I assume you will ask I'll go ahead and state that it should be possible for a woman who does pose for a magazine in her reckless youth to seek political office and not be hounded by her past (assuming its all in her past). But the electorate is still going to consider it, and compare it to their other options.
I will also state that I don't think there'll be any harm done by a blanket soft ban on anyone who stars in a professional pornographic film from holding a political position.
I am absolutely 100% fine with keeping people like this out of public office.
If she is cheating on him to do porn, that would be bad.
All the reputational stuff is indirect, and applies to basically any behavior the public finds offensive, from talking to a black person, being in public with uncovered hair, saying "Guten Morgen" instead of "Heil Hitler", smoking, putting up a Dem/GOP lawn sign, or wearing a bikini at the nudist beach. The question of how much one should conform with expectations for the sake of one's (and one's family's) reputation is a difficult one and not specifically tied to porn.
So say that the wife is camming only (or in an open relationship) and is also blurring out her face (so there is no reputational risk). Or that her husband (in the case of an open relationship) is taking part in a gang bang video while wearing a mask.
I honestly do not see the problem. I mean, if the couple had agreed to a no-sexting-third-parties rules beforehand, that would be a breach of that, obviously. You might argue that in an exclusive relationship, such a clause is generally implied.
Why not?
I will grant you that at some point, this will likely affect the ability of a politician to perform his duties as an elected official. My comparison would be smoking. A politician who is chain-smoking and can not function in a government building where smoking is forbidden would be problematic.
On the other hand, I could not care less if the politician was a chain smoker a decade ago, or if he spent half of his waking hours jerking off.
Fortunately for you, the Constitution leaves who is allowed to run in elections pretty much to the states (apart from a few protected categories like race, sex and age (over 18)), with the current SCOTUS, you might get away with disenfranchising porn actors.
Let us suppose for the moment that anyone who has ever participated in a porn movie is a terrible human being and any candidate who did not have a porn past would make a better government official, i.e. that your rule would improve things on the object level.
This is also a new rule, which always carries a cost on the meta level. It also establishes a precedent. At the moment, the only large group of adult US citizens who do not enjoy the franchise are convicted felons (in some states). Your rule would mean that states could decide to remove any non-protected group from the ballot: perhaps plumbers (after all, a lot of porn actors play plumbers, kinda suspicious). Or employees of oil firms. Or people who have been to a pride parade.
Now, if the current president had run on a campaign promise to fuck a person from every county which had voted for her in the oval office on lifestream during her term and won through the horny vote, then I might agree that the overbearing influence of porn actors is a problem which has to be solved, but in the actual world, it is totally a non-issue.
Some people do not like to be represented by Jews, porn actors, MAGA, SJW, men, women, nonbinaries, plumbers, oil execs, DC elites, Blacks, Hollywood actors, reality TV stars, draft dodgers, veterans and so on. There is a really simple thing you can do to avoid that outcome: don't vote for members of your disfavored group. Sure, sometimes the vote goes the other way and you end up with a president you find terrible, but that is still better than the equilibrium of someone disenfranchising their outgroup.
I do not see the problem with her. Clearly she was wrong believing that a live stream would not be recorded or that the voters were not going to care, but come on, she was fucking her husband. How much more traditional family values can you get?
Apart from the probability of people recording, streaming sex is like leaving the blinds open on your fifth floor apartment with the explicit intent that anyone in the next building who has binoculars could see you fuck. Not my kink, personally, but who am I to judge?
If this is the level of desecration of marriage which you think should prevent someone from holding office, you probably think Bill Clinton or Donald Trump are Satan incarnate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link