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 -
You remember incorrectly. Rowling never opposed Harry Potter fan fiction, and in fact is one of the more pro-fan fiction authors out there. She did object to porn fics being available on sites predominantly visited by young fans, but afaik never took any kind of legal action.
As for your rant about deepfakes, I don't think they should be illegal, per se (I think specifically using them to perpetrate fraud or damage someone's reputation is, at the very least, cause for a civil action), but I also think people are entitled to demand sites remove deepfakes of themselves. Like, if you want to create your own personal wank material with Emma Watson, or your neighbor's daughter, keep it to yourself. What's in your head (or on your hard drive) is nobody else's business. Putting it in public is like telling your neighbor's daughter that you jack off thinking about her. If you make it public, you make it her business (and her father's, to put it in terms that you consider relevant).
So you think it should be illegal if those sites don't?
Nah. The right to share the products of one's fantasies, expressions, creativity, etc. is inherent in all of the associated rights.
Sure but it's my choice if I choose to make it their business in a particular context.
Maybe it becomes their business but that doesn't imply any obligation for the state to do anything on their behalf.
Anyway I swear it was Rowling but maybe it was Meyer or some other author of a similar context or maybe it was just erotic fanfiction they were opposed to. (Actually I think maybe the controversy was that Rowling disapproved and tried to take down fics with even small amounts of sexually suggestive content. I don't know. All I know is at least some fics were targeted by someone. In any case the analogy stands even if the details aren't correct.)
Edit: I think I'm right about Rowling. Maybe she changed her mind over time but there's definitely a history of her targeting fan content:
https://old.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/8nphgj/jk_rowling_vs_the_internet_a_history_of_harry/
This not much different than the people who are fully supportive of AI-based image techniques, but only on their terms, that we're discussing. So I think she's a good analogy here, especially since I again do recall some of the discourse being about how it violates the actors' image rights since everyone inevitably associates their appearances with the characters now.
Yes, it does, because the state has made it their business to prevent them from doing anything to protect themselves.
The morally correct response to someone telling your sixteen year old daughter that he enjoys thinking about her while jerking off is ‘if you ever speak to her again I will kill you’. The state has decided to ban this option, and so it is incumbent on the state to imprison(or otherwise deal with) people who justify that recourse. The debate is about where to draw the line, not about whether the state should be involved.
Maybe if you're a violent psycho who is a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, though in that case I'd rather the state move on you.
(By the way, if you feel this strongly about people not jacking off to your (hypothetical?) daughter, then I sure hope you're equally as committed to keeping her completely modest in garb and demeanor. The moment you so much as let her walk around in front of other males in tight leggings (assuming she's attractive), all bets are off, whether they communicate that to you or not, if you want to try to appeal to some more traditional code of behavior. Many such daughters being jacked off to with their fathers unable to do anything about it other than seethe.)
Yeah, no. By this logic, it is incumbent on the state to imprison or otherwise deal with people chewing loudly because it has prevented me from simply murdering them. (You might say that chewing loudly could never possibly justify murder, but perhaps if you had dinner with some of my family members you might disagree.) That is nothing more than naked totalitarianism. (I don't actually support murdering or imprisoning people for chewing loudly of course. I am just pointing out that your argument is contingent on the notion that a particular behavior deserves a particular degree of punishment in the first place, which is obviously highly debatable. You're trying to launder in this premise as automatic.)
Yes, this applies so long as anything at all is illegal (like murder, which I'm pretty sure has been prohibited in some form in every society). It's also a meaningless statement.
Yes, I am aware that men think about women while masturbating, and that teenaged girls are attractive to the opposite sex.
Informing a woman or girl you’ve masturbated while thinking about her is creepy behavior* that will foreseeably be received as a threat, and there’s no possible reason to engage in it. Behaving in a sexually threatening manner towards women and girls justifies lethal violence from the men responsible for them. It’s been that way since time immemorial and the only exception has been if they’re just whores who forfeited their right to male protection(which was not the topic up for discussion). Things which are threatening are not the same as things which are merely annoying. Women have a right not to hear implied rape threats and their husbands and fathers have a right to police the things said to them.
*unless you’re in a relationship where she’s into that, I suppose, but I’m not talking about Reddit sex positive weirdos here.
That depends a decent amount on the context.
Maybe, if being "responsible" for them also means they have complete and absolute just and proper property rights and masculine dominion over them (which is also how it's been "since time immemorial"). Otherwise they are merely simping to some degree. The natural price of masculinity taking responsibility for the feminine is the feminine's complete and absolute obedience in return. So if you are not advocating for this then you are simply advancing cuckoldry under the guise of chivalry (which I suspect because you're framing the issue here as an injury to the female as opposed to her owner).
That's like at least 97% of modern women/girls over the age of 13 or so though, so I kind of think it's implicitly up for discussion. The actual society we live in is not the one you're describing.
If we're talking ideal ideal world (obviously my opinion influenced by my ideological presumptions here, though I think it's a lot more traditional), men have a right to not hear implied threats against their exclusive use of their property and women have very few to no rights. Again, the injury is to the man (hence why "rape" evolved as a synonym for "steal", because it's stealing another man's property). But even then I think in most cases going to the absolute extreme over someone saying they find your property attractive is a little much. If somebody said they liked my car, I wouldn't automatically in all circumstances threaten them like were threatening to steal it.
The fact that you think relationships where the girl finds her partner sexually attractive enough to enjoy the idea of him wanting to masturbate to her is the domain of "Reddit sex positive weirdos" says a lot here.
My entire point is that we are not living in the kind of society you’re imagining, we’re living in a society where the state takes on the function of protecting women from sexual violence and predation. And the state, if it’s going to take on that function, has the responsibility to actually do that. Which in turn means that it needs to protect the privacy of the nude bodies of non-sex workers(and no, wearing a bikini does not make you a sex worker, and I say that as someone who does not approve of bikinis).
And I consider this invalid, because the only thing that warrants protecting in my view is men's property rights over women.
Furthermore, the creation of fiction is automatically not violence or predation, because it's fiction (unless some better justifications than are being offered can prove otherwise in particular cases).
The state has also taken on the function of protecting people from violence, but it does not ban most threats, only fairly extreme and imminent ones, which is probably the best analogy here. I can with pretty much full legality quite credibly make you reasonably believe that I have a strong desire to kill you, with you maybe being able to seek a protection order against me at best (which barely punishes me in any way and even then usually requires repeated incidents), to a far greater degree than me masturbating to you would imply that I desire to rape you.
"The state has taken on a duty to protect against X meaning it must crack down to every degree possible on any behavior that could possibly be conceived of by anyone as relating to X whether sensibly or not." is what gave us years of coronacultist totalitarianism. No thanks.
??? The privacy of their nude bodies is not a subject of contention here. Their face is being put on the nude bodies of other people (who overwhelmingly are sex workers). It is little more than a high tech equivalent of what any teenager could have always achieved with a Penthouse, his school yearbook, some scissors, and some glue for decades. Did you think magical x-rays were involved here or something? (And on that subject, it's ironic that the state would supposedly be tasked with protecting this because its own imposed TSA body scanners are in fact the biggest known violation of it in human history.)
It absolutely 100% does if your primary purpose behind doing so is to create sexual transactions where men get horny over you/jack off to you in exchange for you getting cash/profitable attention/ad revenue etc.
I’ve already addressed your first point- the discussion is one of line drawing(that is, at what point so creepy comments towards women become criminalized) and not of whether men should have carte blanche to say whatever they want to women. We obviously disagree on where the line is drawn. And, for the record, a society where the state does not ordinarily police relations between men and women but her male relatives have much more leeway to use force in protecting her is also just, it’s just not on the table(and likely would not go well for a self-described pedophile).
Yes, my daughters high school classmate doing and then disseminating this would seem to me a quite central example of grounds to become very angry, and resort to violence if regular disciplinary channels do not punish him.
Most women who wear a bikini are doing so because that is what our culture considers normal to swim in. You can deplore that(and I do) without thinking it makes them all sex workers(which it doesn’t).
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