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 -
Come on. I am pretty sure that most women, feminist or not, would be disgusted at the thought of their partner having sex with dogs and would not need "Animals can't consent" as a justification for their disgust.
"Women only hate porn because they're jealous of hotter younger women" is also very uncharitable and probably not true, or at least their stated reasons for hating porn are also genuine, even if insecurity about hotter younger women plays a part.
Of course they would be disgusted, daguerran was not denying that. But they would be unable to justify it as anything else than lack of consent because disgust is outside of the moral vocabulary of the modern liberal west (as per Haidt's observations on WEIRD morality). Try explaining why it's disgusting without resorting to a variant of "it hurts the animal" (or imagine a situation where the animal initiated, and is clearly unhurt by it). You'll inevitably end up sounding like a rabbi or an imam explaining why eating pork is impure. Of course, in many situations it probably also hurts the animal, so the objection is also partially genuine, but it's a different impulse that led to digging for a post-hoc justification for condemnation.
Similarly he posits that jealousy is outside that vocabulary, and that the justifications for porn-negativity given are post-hoc, even if they might still make a genuine point sometimes.
A good test for that would if someone offered as a solution that porn be mandated to be instructive in helping men bring women to orgasm, but otherwise could still be of hot younger women. Do you think the complaints would stop? Do you think there's any amount of accomodations that could be done for the goalposts to stop moving? Personally, I think he's right on the money that the only accomodations that would do it are those that make either porn unthreatening to the sexual value of those complaining about it, or so unenjoyable that men stop watching.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link