site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36371 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Perhaps instead, in reality it actually is wrong to imagine or fantasize about what other people look like while naked. The reason this is so commonly accepted as benign is because its so unenforceable to prevent.

IMO this is the correct answer. It is in fact wrong to fantasize about what someone looks like naked, or having sex with them, or what have you. It's very common, yes. But it's still wrong.

Let's say for example that you regularly fantasized about some female friend being naked. Furthermore, let's say you never told a soul but did write it in a diary which you kept safe and never let anyone see. Some might say you did nothing wrong. But even so, if your friend decided to snoop in your diary and found that out she would be profoundly creeped out, and the friendship would be seriously damaged. I think the same would happen for a male friend too, of course, this isn't a gender thing.

But if sexual mores are so arbitrary/constructed that something that would otherwise be wrong can just be arbitrarily agreed-upon as acceptable just because its unenforceable, how really wrong can any ('victimless') violation of sexual mores be said to be?

I don't think this is a good argument. First of all, we don't agree that it's acceptable. We simply realize that it's impossible to tell, so we can't do anything about it. Those aren't the same.

Second, I don't think that whether a norm is enforceable has any bearing on whether the activity is actually wrong. Even if we can't catch a murderer and bring them to justice, we don't say "well I guess it wasn't that wrong to murder that person". The immorality of an act, and our ability to punish that immorality, are unrelated to each other.

Let's say for example that you regularly fantasized about some female friend being naked. Furthermore, let's say you never told a soul but did write it in a diary which you kept safe and never let anyone see. Some might say you did nothing wrong. But even so, if your friend decided to snoop in your diary and found that out she would be profoundly creeped out, and the friendship would be seriously damaged. I think the same would happen for a male friend too, of course, this isn't a gender thing.

This is appealing to consequences that only result if you leave records of your fantasies. I don't think it can extend to thoughts without completely changing the underlying situation.

Imagine applying the same standards to almost any other fantasy or imagined scenario you can have with another person.

Is it wrong to imagine yourself in an action movie with another person? How about if you do it frequently, and write it down?

Is it wrong to imagine the reaction another person will have to a gift you plan to give them?

Is it wrong to imagine conversations with other people?

Is it wrong to imagine punching another person?

I just don't see what line sexually fantasizing about another person is supposed to be crossing that these other things don't. I think policing thoughts is harmful and unproductive, and it is better to just accept that people all around you are imagining and doing things with their remembered images of you in their brains all the time. If people remember me at all when I'm not around, I'm flattered more than anything, even if they are remembering me in a negative light, or projecting me into a scenario that is harmful or embarrassing to my imagined doppleganger.

I think at best you could get a norm that amounts to, "If you fantasize about someone you know in real life, don't leave a paper trail."

I just don't see what line sexually fantasizing about another person is supposed to be crossing that these other things don't.

The problem with your argument is that you assume those other things don't cross lines. But fantasizing about hitting someone does cross a line, for example. It's bad to do that too. If I had to try to generalize a principle out of this (which I'm not sure I have the chops to do), it would be something like "don't fantasize about doing something with/to someone that they wouldn't want you to actually do with/to them". Fantasizing isn't bad in and of itself, it's the fact that you're fantasizing about something they would not be ok with that upsets people. Thus, fantasizing about having a conversation is fine because having a conversation is fine. Fantasizing about punching someone in the face is bad because punching them in the face is bad.

I also think you're really missing the mark if your takeaway is "just don't get caught and it's ok". I mentioned the diary because it's the only real way for someone to find out, but it isn't the record that would bother someone. It's the fact that you are doing it at all. "It's ok as long as I don't get caught" is literally the moral code of a child, but as an adult one should realize "no it's wrong even if nobody will ever know".

I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time on, but this sounds bat-shit crazy neurotic unhealthy self-flagellating.

Or do you just have something against imagination and fiction entirely?

As a different perspective, avoiding fantasizing about things that would be bad to do in real life sounds like an aspect of virtue ethics. It is neurotic and unhealthy to focus on something that will never happen. Epicureans would focus on obtainable pleasures. Buddists would say that these desires cause suffering. And so forth.

I think @SubstantialFrivolity is arguing that there is a very real moral and psychological injury being done to the people engaged in making and consuming these AI Generated images. I don't know if they would extrapolate to porn in general, but I would.

Fantasizing about sex with (uninterested female friend) isn't just about 'having sex with them immorally', it could also be a part of motivation to see if they are interested / pursue them, or even in a conservative moral framework attempt to court them for marriage and then have sex. "If something is obtainable" is not something one can know in many cases.

Do you think there is actual benefit to fantasizing about having sex with someone, in the eventuality that you actually get to have sex with that person at some point? I am not very certain that imagining having sex with a woman, picturing her liking this, enjoying that, actually helps when you encounter the flesh and blood woman, who likely acts and enjoys completely different things. In fact, I think it probably hinders a fruitful, mutually pleasing sexual encounter.

My argument is fantasizing about sex is ... part of or deeply related to desiring sex, in (same analogy as before) the same sense that 'imagining tasty food' is part of wanting that tasty food. This may be described as 'wanting it so badly you imagine it', but I don't actually think they're separate, or that 'imagination' is a discrete thing separate from normal thought. If you, just as a casual action, plan to reach for a cup, do you "imagine" reaching before you do? Not really, but ... sort of, partially, vacuously?

So 'imagining sex with someone' is just a normal thing. It's possible to spend too much time imagining it and not enough time in pursuit, and that could 'make the sex worse', but I don't think it's made worse in the normal case of imagining it.

I agree with you about imagination, that it is inseparable from rational thought and a needed step in actualizing a potential. I draw a distinction between imagining something - having a thought or chain of thoughts related to a topic that leads to a conclusion regardless of the current state of physical material reality - and fantasizing, dwelling, vividly painting a picture and circling around and around in the same thoughts for minutes and hours and days. Imagination gets you from point A to point B and invites action. Fantasizing is Narcissus staring at his reflection for the rest of his life. It prevents action.

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