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 -
Louis C.K. was trending on Twitter because his Madison Square Garden concert was sold out, which some on the left are interpreting to mean that cancel culture is not real, or that it does not hurt people's careers. (link: https://archive.is/ryKrI )
What does it mean to be sufficiently canceled? I think Louis C.K. qualifies as having been sufficiently cancelled. If you look at his Wikipedia page, his sexual misconduct scandal, in 2017, killed off his TV and movie career. His filmography abruptly ends in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C.K._filmography
Sure he's still able to sell out, but this reflects individual preferences for his comedy, not the approval of the media establishment, in which he is still damaged goods. Comedians are sorta like contractors in the sense that they have to hustle, not depend on a platform or the backing of a major media establishment. I think this is is what gives comedians an advantage over actors in regard to cancellation, because stand-up comedy can be inexpensively distributed at scale, such as digitally online, without needing the backing of an entire studio or publishing house.
Cancel culture regards the intent and attempt to end one’s career, reputation, and livelihood. Just like we did to the Nazis. It’s very real and very alive. That some Nazis escaped to South America does not change the Allies’ intent and attempt to hold them accountable.
What is risible is for ordinary people to try to give other ordinary people the Nazi treatment. Before social media, CK may have run into some small-time, inside baseball sanctions. Maybe FX and HBO get wind of allegations and fail to renew his hit series. And if the CK infractions are truly egregious and criminal, then maybe there is mainstream media coverage. But I believe the whispers here both started and were amplified by social media before mainstream media ran with it.
As mentioned by 2rafa, Louis would have if anything done worse under the old version of social punishments in more conservative societies. He would likely have been at a minimum ostracized, fired or run out of town(depending on his social position of course) and quite possibly been visited by a group of large lads (often the brothers and fathers of the girls involved) who would have had a somewhat violent word with the guy jerking off in front of the womenfolk.
Social media has expanded the reach, and social changes have made some changes as to what is actually tabooed (and why) but the underlying practices are thousands of years old and are intrinsic to social bonds and enforcing behavioral norms. We're not getting rid of them any time soon, and that's assuming we even should be trying to get rid of them.
What is the difference between him jerking off in front of the womenfolk and the womenfolk giving him a handjob?
From all reasonable accounts, it seems to me that C.K had 'consent'. Unlike 2rafa, I think that is the crux of the matter as far as value judgments are concerned (I'm not very "trad"). With consent, the ladies had a weird sexual encounter, without consent they were victims of a sex crime. I understand that whether there was mutual consent or not is fuzzy and that's what makes this a scissor issue, but given the track record and incentives of other #MeToo victims, I would probably side with C.K's retelling of the story here.
Bill burr - No means no is a relevant video for this conversation. All I want to ask the ladies who supposedly regretted C.K. having done what he did is, why didn't you yell "NO!"? Doing that changes nothing, fair enough, but the fact you didn't do it is not normal human behavior towards a threat. If some lunatic is about to swing an axe at me, I will yell "stop don't kill me!", he might kill me anyways because he's a lunatic axe murderer, but me giving in without a semblance of a fight would be suspicious.
You might but then his (as you say) borderline pervy behavior would not have been accepted whether it was morally correct or not. Value judgments are subjective so as the people observing the behavior change, so to do the judgements and outcomes. In Woodstock he might have been ok, in a small rural town he might have been run out of town, in Northern Ireland back in the day he might have been kneecapped.
All of them are sub-judicial sanctions dished out by whatever community is involved. What Louis thinks is pretty much irrelevant in every case though, he isn't the one that is making the value judgement.
I think you are speaking past my point.
I am saying is, Were the women totally against what happened or not, in short, the angle I am pushing is that what if they were okay, or more than okay with him jerking off? But, claimed otherwise later for reasons.
What if it was a mutually agreed upon sexual activity?
My point is that this doesn't matter. Cads who seduced women into sex didn't get let off because they said yes. If you breach behavioral norms, you're in trouble regardless. In this case jerking off in front of people in a work environment EVEN if those people said yes is seen as bad. If he had picked up women in a bar and had consent then he would have been in a safer position.
If my BDSM proclivities get released there is a good chance I get fired or ostracized despite the fact I am meticulous about consent. Consent isn't the driving factor here.
Maybe prior to the sexual revolution, when women expected to have their sexual opportunities managed by family gatekeeping and prudish societal mores. When the oppressive nature of that paradigm was rejected and women claimed to want first-hand control over their own sex lives, it became their responsibility. If they feel that they are inadequately equipped to exercise this responsiblity, it's up to them to call for a return to the old model, but they won't, so they must prefer greater vulnerability. Why is any of this the cad's fault now? They are keeping it simple, at least.
Again its not about fault, it's about perception. Doesn't matter how hypocritical you think it is. You can have an oppressive paradigm and women's control, it can be entirely incoherent (not saying it is, but it can be). It doesn't have to make any sense whatsoever. I am not saying that is good, I am saying that is the situation.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link