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 noticed a problem that a lot of the dumbest laws that makes no sense today were set up in the 20th century. Much older customs are Lindy; they persist between ages. Very recent laws might make sense for right now. But stuff invented by people between 1910 and 1970 were temporary patches for a bygone era. High age of consent laws are an example of this. 15 year olds just aren't as sheltered as they were in 1940, and trials aren't just based on witnesses and testimony like they were in 1940. When someone has a relationship, there is a huge electronic paper trail of the promises and dynamics of that relationship. Therefore, the government can prove much more subtle things than just "she is 15 and they had sex." Through online messages and social media, the government can show where a man lied and did not follow through. The law does not recognize this because it was created 100 years ago for a specific people that are now gone, when all of that would have been spoken in private, mouth to mouth, in a world where that couldn't even be secretly recorded, leaving no objective evidence behind. There is no reason to assume that law is the best for us, with all of our technology, medicine, hygiene, and education.
I believe adultery should be a felony and deceptive seduction should be a crime, maybe a felony. So in the case of a 40 year old and a teenager, one or both of those applies in most cases. If neither applies, then we are condemning age gaps or fornication, which could be okay, but I'm not sure how the mainstream society can consistently justify that (they never justify anything though, it's always just feelings).
Why, other than STDs, cutting out teenage boys, adultery, and deception? I think all of those except cutting out should be illegal on their own. Cutting out is good actually because I don't think most teenage boys are mature enough for dating. Personally I was not mature enough to date for marriage until I was 20. I think they ruin the girls far worse than a 20 something could. 40 somethings are in between, they're more mature but you get into the massive age gap issue and the question as to why a 40 something is dating a 15 year old. Is it frequently adultery? Did his wife die in childbirth? Otherwise, why is he even available for that? And so on.
Say this to the gays and see what happens. I don't find this reasoning consistent with current sexual ethics; it's special pleading, and the exception to the rule can't be justified.
More options
Context Copy link