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 -
I've seen a number of comments below discussing porn. I initially planned to respond to these comments individually, but it's a substantial enough line of thinking that I figured a second-level comment on my part was appropriate.
It seems the commentariat here is fixated on the apparent contradiction between feminism and porn use - that porn clearly produces negative outcomes so it is ludicrous that modern feminists support it. How could pornography be "empowering" when it makes men sloppy lovers at best and dangerous sex pests at worst? I spent an inordinate amount of time with well-educated feminist women while at college, so I feel decently qualified to paraphrase what they've told me.
I'll preface with an important premise: pornography is not a single stimulus, but rather a diverse palette of erotic visuals that are lumped together under the umbrella term porn. The gap between studio produced porn and amateur content is as vast as the latest Marvel blockbuster and a limited run Criterion release. In high production porn, much like many professions, it is not uncommon to work under a domineering, unrealistic boss that overworks you and underpays you. These pornographic outlets are also the epicenter for most of the abuse in the industry. On the other hand, OF and amateur porn has a significantly flattened authority structure, and the performers no longer need to engage in unrealistic and demeaning sex acts to mold themselves into a male-gazey superstimulus. At least not to the degree of studio porn. This distinction is important: many of the women I spoke to advocated that studio content be eradicated, as the industry has problems. That does not implicate porn in general. This is also where the idea of empowerment begins to creep in. It is not empowering to be tossed around like a commodity by a profiteering pseudo-pimp. However, it is empowering in some sense to create your own erotic content because it represents a kind of authentic choice, especially when compared to traditional sexual norms and the prevailing idea that men can be sexually open with fewer social consequences. It is empowering precisely because of this contrast. In a world where men were not sowing their wild oats, I'm unsure if notions of empowerment would have really taken off.
Second, porn is not the be-all end all of sexual depiction. The thinking was that porn, much like alcohol, is clearly a vice that can be enjoyed responsibly when it is consumed in the appropriate quantity and with the appropriate precautions. Yes, alcohol (porn) can cause problems. Yes, alcohol (porn) is probably bad for you in excess. But the alternative of banning it is paternalistic and likely to produce its own crop of negative outcomes. This is another part of the empowerment angle: freedom to consume and choose. You could probably track down a gallon of Everclear and chug it, and few would come clamoring to ban alcohol. The relationship one has with alcohol is on them - some are teetotalers, some are social drinkers, some probably flirt a little close with alcoholism, but it's still a conclusion they came to. The same can be said with porn. It was often suggested that if porn was illegal, it would drive the industry underground and prompt even more abuse toward the women performing in it, as their employers would no longer be accountable to the legal system, per se. So porn ought to be at least tolerated. Bonnie Blue and those like her were considered unrepresentative morally questionable aberrations, more a product of our outrage-driven media landscape rather than exemplars of feminism in practice.
The last prong of this argument involves sex education. Some of the negative behavioral outcomes in porn, particularly the way it "teaches" men to have unhealthy sex, can be prevented by appropriate, candid sex ed. Their idea of sex ed wasn't simply putting a condom on a banana, but discussions about consent, love, and intimacy. Further, if porn use and sexuality in general are made to be more "normal," young adults could feel more comfortable discussing these topics with parents and trusted adults. I'm reminded of the perennial toaster-fucker greentext. I can imagine a world where /r/ToasterFuckers exists and a parent successfully guides their child away from it with the appropriate support. The mere existence of /r/ToasterFuckers is not the problem. While porn may be particularly tempting, I don't see how it is entirely immune to guidance. This is the classic "if you're going to drink, you're going to do it in my house." Is it effective? It's hard to say, and it's certainly a tall order compared to the status quo. But on its face it is at least logically coherent.
And, of course, there were plenty of discussions about age restrictions. It seems trivially true to me that a 21-year-old can handle porn better than a 12-year-old. Is there such a thing as an effective age restriction online? I'm not sure.
I think there are still problems with this argument - namely, that women choosing to make porn are often compelled to do so out of financial need which makes it unempowering at times. It also doesn't address moral arguments about porn's existence, like if porn is fundamentally immoral or disrespectful to human sexuality. It addresses most of the consequentialist points well, though, and I wanted to provide it the best I could to flesh out some of the positions that may not be as well-represented on this forum.
Yes, and for Onlyfans in particular, only 1% of the women make 99% of the money (or a similar ratio), meaning the overwhelming majority of women on there are selling their dignity and trading away immeasurable respect and status for pennies on the dollar. I consider this exploitative.
That's just true of any kind of showbiz?
How many musicians make real money? How many starlets make it big in Hollywood? Are you going to bite the bullet and call those industries exploitative too? So exploitative that they deserve to be shut down? What is the competition ratio and Gini-coefficient worthy of concern?
Much, much, less than 1%.
More options
Context Copy link
The difference is that musicians aren't selling pictures of their genitals online, and if you stop being a musician there aren't lasting negative consequences from your past career as a musician.
Well Billy Squier will never be rid of that music video.
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