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.
Because it correlates with precisely zero of the skills/personality traits I would want to see in a legislative representative or public official.
And likely correlates with beliefs/personality traits I would distinctly not want in a representative or official.
Simply put: You cannot POSSIBLY convince me that they're the best alternative for the job at hand.
And to once again put my preferences out there: I'd generally want my officials to be Married with kids (i.e., a stake in the future), own some property in the area they're representing (i.e. have some skin in the game for the wellbeing of their local area), not be in large amounts of personal debt, and not be prone to making, call them 'self-destructive' decisions (hard drug abuse, highly risky behaviors with limited upside, wanton and regular gambling, and really weird sexual activity, even if you keep it within the confines of the law).
Basically, Hunter Biden is NOT someone I want representing me or having any sway over my life. I was endlessly annoyed to learn that he might be influencing decisions during Joe's term.
Publishing porn of themselves is actually decent evidence that they don't meet my preferred criteria. So my Bayesian updates are going to require some SERIOUS evidence in the other direction to conclude that they're the most suitable person among the candidates.
And there's also this little gem in the article:
She says, after intentionally splashing her naked body on the internet.
Ability to foresee possible/likely consequences of actions in the present is another feature I'd want in my officials... but I'm well aware we rarely get that.
I'd also like them to not have a two week long emotional breakdown in response to negative events, but I'd assume she exaggerates.
There is a difference between streaming and putting a recording up.
At my local swimming lake, some women sunbathe topless. They do not care too much about men oogling their breasts. If a group of assholes were to start discussing the merits of their breasts, they could always cover up and end the show.
But if some jerk walked over and started to take pictures, they would certainly become very upset and hopefully call the cops. While they do not mind a few guys seeing their tits, they do not want to end with a topless picture of them ending up on the internet for eternity.
Any stream on the internet to an audience of more than zero runs the risk of someone screencapping it unbeknownst to you. This really should be in the "basic internet safety" checklist, right after "once it's on the internet it's on the internet forever".
Yep. Once I read about the Analog Hole I realized that there is no possible scheme of DRM, access control, or privacy measures that can ensure anything you transmit digitally will be kept 'secret.'
Encryption gets you something resembling 'privacy' in the data being transmitted, but you CANNOT control what the end user does with it, and they can record and expose it at will if they're malicious in the slightest.
Combine that with dirt-cheap storage and its best to assume that most of your digital communications could resurface at any time. I try to hammer it into my legal assistants' heads: Don't put anything in an e-mail or chat message if you wouldn't want it to be read out loud in Court in front of a Judge later.
Attorney-client privilege is powerful but not invincible.
This gets REALLY interesting when discussing cryptocurrency and private keys.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link