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 -
Rare case I directly disagree with you, even though I sort of accept:
I can't help but think that they're not really giving 'informed consent' to the activity if they can't really grasp the real odds involved (they overestimate their chances of success, nobody dissuades them of this) and the first order harmful effects, much less the second order ones, that can result.
I would never hold a gun to a woman's head to prevent her from prostituting herself (although, if it were my own daughter, I might take several less drastic but still severe measures), but I think the legality of the choice doesn't really absolve the morality of it.
Its one of a pretty long laundry list of things that I expect many women will enthusiastically hop into if enticed, yet come to regret later and be very angry that someone didn't dissuade them at the time.
Look, I think that a society that only allows people to make good choices is tyrannical, even if it's benevolent tyranny. I am not maximally libertarian, but someone selling pictures of them riding a dildo does not rise to the level of harm where I will tolerate (if not endorse) governmental intervention.
I think you have every right to personally disapprove. I do and would disapprove too, if my daughter contemplated something like that, I'd be immensely disappointed, assuming that society and cultural mores around sex stayed much the same as it currently is today. But if it was entirely normalized? I wouldn't forbid her, even if my own upbringing made me queasy. In a similar vein, I don't think there's anything wrong with working as a janitor, but I don't want my kids to become janitors.
If we apply the standard that people who aren't maximally rational and numerate can't do certain risky things, then we would very quickly find ourselves in a situation where the average person can't drink, gamble or smoke or drive large SUVs. I don't drink (much), gamble (at all) or smoke (barring vapes, which are far less harmful) but I am also opposed to a blanket ban. If they're old enough to vote and not obviously retarded, they can do what they want with their own bodies. I don't see it as my business or that of the state.
If I could sell pictures of my body for monetary gain and without repercussion?
self_made_human_nudes_uncensored_gone_wild.jpg
If hot women lined up to fuck me for money? Brother, I'd do it for free.
I already sell my body in a very real sense, since my mind is attached to it and so are my hands. That is what working for a wage means. I don't see anything qualitatively or morally wrong about sex work in a vacuum, the problem is the lack of vacuum. The kind of woman who is willing to prostitute herself is highly likely to be immensely unsuitable for me. That's just basic priors IMO. But history has no end of examples of respected courtesans or temple priestesses who were gussied up prostitutes. And society was fine with it, at the time.
Besides, I do occasionally watch porn, and I'm not a hypocrite to the degree that I would try to ban pornstars while jerking off to them.
I hope it is clear that I am willing to tolerate, if not endorse, many things that I disagree with or disapprove of. I ask only for the same charity in return. If OF caused giga-AIDs and the imminent extinction of the human race, I'd look the other way. It's not that bad.
There's gotta be a line somewhere though, right?
If your child is reaching towards boiling water on the hot stovetop, you'd probably grab their hand to stop them, even though they might not be too badly burned, its not something you want them to risk, and a bad injury will very likely vastly diminish their quality of life in ways they can't easily predict.
So if you see your freshly 18-year-old daughter reaching towards the high-quality webcam and setting up an Amazon wishlist, especially if you notice a skeevy dude with tattoos and a pornstache whispering in her ear, you might feel some obligation to snatch her metaphorical hand away before she takes a step that is likely to diminish her quality of life in ways she can't easily predict.
SEE ALSO: STUDENT LOAN DEBT
I'm coming around to a social order that's like this. Ties into my musings on 'age of consent' discourse.
I don't think we need to prevent all harms everywhere. But if we're not going to go full Darwinian and let God sort things out, then the guardrails we do set up could be contoured much more wisely than they currently are, ESPECIALLY if we want to try and optimize around humanity's long term survival and (a value I have) expansion into space.
Same.
I just have lived long enough now to see that certain decisions people make can cause irreversible harm, and it would genuinely be a net good to divert them from those decisions long enough for them to actually become productive and self-assured before they actually accept the full risk of the behavior.
And I'm a radical individualist and anti-federalist! I'm not asking for there to be some big central bureau intervening in everyone's individual decisions! That has its own major problems.
Just a system that insures against the fat-tailed harms as best we can.
IF NOTHING ELSE, we need to be internalizing the externalities so the costs fall specifically on those who create the harms or indulge the vices, rather than the rest of us. Cue my other favorite rant.
See, neither of us disagree that there is scope for guard-rails or restrictions, we just disagree on where to put them. If we lived in a more enlightened and intelligent society, I would let my inner libertarian flag fly, and say that yes, society should allow every free sophont to own personal nuclear bombs or sell themselves into slavery.
Sadly, we live in a deeply imperfect world, with a lot of stupid people around who would not only screw themselves over (hey, it's their prerogative) but also impose substantial externalities. I don't mind second hand or indoor smoking being banned, but I do oppose a ban on cigarettes even if I don't use them. I am mostly okay with cigarettes being heavily taxed, which compensates for the externalities and has had meaningful and substantial reductions in popularity, at least in the UK.
The issue with the toddler analogy is that well, they're a toddler. I'm not sure even Von Neumann or Einstein were operating at the level of the average adult at 2 years old. Safeguards in place make sense. Adults/parents being able to override their autonomy is desirable.
But my 18 year old daughter? I would impose as much punishment as is legal, say threatening to cut her off from college funds or leave her life. But I wouldn't ask the government to make sex work illegal, that is going too far. At least some people, like Aella, do it while being far from stupid or poorly informed. Good for them, even if I don't particularly approve. I would sleep with Aella, I absolutely wouldn't marry her. But there are people willing to marry her (Bay Area autists for the most part), so it's not ruining her life. I don't want to ruin her life. I will sigh and look the other way.
Yep.
Right.
But should it be legal to, e.g. physically fight off the male interlopers who are pulling her into porn? Online grooming/blackmail gangs are a real thing. (That link is quite SFW but the implications are stomach-churning, fair warning) Maybe you can physically detain her for a period of time so she can't hang with the porno guys. That has legal precedent, after all. Maybe require her to wear a tracking bracelet outside the house. Of course, I'm told that's basically what parents do with their phones anyway.
I just find it interesting that you happily suggest using incentives to nudge her behavior around, but might balk at the idea of using even basic physical intervention. I am in agreement that creating a law that reins her in is too far.
Overall, I'm okay with "do your best to train your kid to use all common sense and restraint and to do the better thing, then let them go their own way."
I'm just not sold on the idea that 18 years of age is the correct checkpoint for many kids, and if we say its okay to use certain tactics to control their behavior before age 18, it runs into the same issue, why is it suddenly impermissible after they're 18? Your interest in their wellbeing hasn't shifted!
And no, I'm not limiting this to females. It might be useful to also prevent dudes from doing reckless and stupid stuff too. Its just that physically restraining a fully grown guy from doing a thing is a riskier proposition, for obvious reasons.
If there's an online grooming gang involved (and is it even grooming when we're talking about a legal adult?), then I would call the cops and ask them to take care of it, presuming that the activity was illegal.
I think physical restraint is, usually, a drastic escalation and violation of autonomy. My friends and family can pull me out of the way of a truck, but I'd yell at them if they stopped me from going out on a date with someone they don't like.
If my daughter told me she was going to attempt suicide, or do fentanyl, then I think I would do quite a few things that are clearly illegal, and damn the consequences. Starting an OF or doing sex work is not ideal, but not nearly as bad.
I have done plenty of things that my parents didn't approve of at that age. Some of those things went well for me, others... the opposite. A part of becoming an adult is realizing that the typical parent (mine and hopefully yours) is actually quite wise and knows what's good for you, even if they aren't omniscient.
I have my own issues with using age as the (primary) standard for capacity. I know 15 year old I'd trust to run a business, and 35 year olds who shouldn't operate a lemonade stand. I am too tired to go into exhaustive detail regarding the specifics of my views, but you can imagine something like a citizenship/adulthood/competence exam that anyone is allowed to try at any age. Nothing overly onerous, but enough to eliminate the idiots. You can pass it at 16 and legally emancipate yourself, or you might not make it till you're dying of old age if you're legitimately stupid. Then perhaps more demanding and specific tests for things that are quite clearly bad for you. Think Yudkowsky's Shop That Sells Banned Products.
You want to get surgery done by someone who isn't a licensed professional? Sure, pass this test of literacy and demonstrate an understanding of the principles of the Scientific Method and why med school is a good idea (you don't have to agree, you just have to understand), sign a few waivers, wait a week, and you're good to go. That includes waiving liability or the ability to seek compensation from the State.
If you break your spine while driving drunk, or lose your dick while fucking a blender, then I don't see why society should have to foot the bill. Maybe drug addicts who are violent, criminally inclined and disruptive and entirely unwilling to accept help shouldn't be eligible for housing or most welfare. If they're doing coke on weekends and making a million dollars a year as a quant, why the hell should I care?
Incredibly enjoying this discussion since its one of the few times I'm seeing major daylight between our respective positions, despite coming from almost identical premises, it seems.
I'm gathering that you're ultimately fine with full on Social and Natural Darwinism for deciding punishments and outcomes for risky behavior... but there's a certain amount of nuance when it comes to your own progeny.
Well let me drill down on that a bit. If you believed that her doing sex work was more likely than not (i.e. 51%) to make it so that she'd be unable to marry a reliable, respectable, supportive husband and thus grievously impact her financial future, her odds of being a mother, her overall mental health, are you still going to stand on the 'autonomy' position, even if she's getting some malicious actor whispering in her ear (but, importantly NOT coercing her)? Yes, I would hope she'd listen to her loving father over the Casanova trying to pimp her out, but if she slips up this one time that might be all it takes.
The position I'm arguing is that there are things that can create lifelong misery and consequences that are nonetheless NOT as serious as death or dismemberment, but have outsized negative impact compared to their benefits. Yes, people should be able to pursue such things. But if your own child, in their youthful indiscretion, is about to go jump off a metaphorical cliff into the water below,
Wouldn't you be willing to take some serious measures to avert that?
I mean, depends a bit on what "they don't like" actually means. "This woman is riddled with STDs and has a history of violent outbursts" might justify trying to stop you. But yes, that's a fair distinction.
Full on? Definitely not. I'd rather we make everyone smarter and saner instead, and I think that is a real option. I see several Fix Everything switches if I look around. Nuclear power, an end to NIMBYism, institutionalization of the mentally ill homeless (I have a US bias, some places don't have Fix Everything switches).
But time and money and effort are not in nigh-infinite abundance today. I prescribe policy that works the best for the world as it is, at least as I see it, not some kind of AGI-having post scarcity utopia. There are a lot of people who make everyone strictly worse off for reasons that can't be easily fixed or excused by circumstances completely out of their control. I think we can be harsher on them, for the sake of the super-majority. If you shoplift a dozen times and end up in and out of custody for more serious crimes, I want the book thrown at you. If you murder and rob over and over again, then you might age out of it, but prison is expensive (and has scope to be much cheaper even in the US) and sometimes the death penalty just makes sense (it should be cheaper too).
I am not advocating for some kind of free for all or maximal libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, at least not today.
If it was actually that bad? Yup. But at least in reality, I don't think it's remotely as bad. And if she figures out it's a bad idea and wants to pivot away, it is far from impossible to salvage a good life.
Like I said, if OF caused giga-AIDS, we should ban it. But not even actual AIDS kills >51% of people, let alone merely things that could cause AIDS.
Why wouldn't I? I hope it's clear that I'm grading according to perceived risk and damage. If my daughter was going to inject herself with a needle filled with literal HIV solution, I'd stop her with force. If it was a needle dropped by a junkie or if she was doing fent, I'd do so too. But come on, are you saying starting an OF is remotely as dangerous? If not, I think my decision to remain within legal bounds is both pragmatically valid and in accordance with my values.
Given that I've just used HIV for my argument so far, sure, I think I'd understand if they did stop me. I certainly wouldn't cut contact or press charges.
I'm off to bed in a bit, but a pleasure nonetheless. I don't think your views are unreasonable, even if we do have our differences.
See, we're really in agreement on almost everything else.
But I'll just push that one point: how many people ended up as 'mentally ill homeless' because there wasn't an intervention earlier on in their life to keep them on a more productive track?
We've got the tech to make this so, but in living memory it was a mass killer of humans.
And the tech that keeps it at bay relies on a fairly fragile supply chain, so if that goes, it comes back with a vengeance.
Its that sort of thing that makes me believe that we should in fact try to push towards a social order that is more robust against AIDS transmission (same for other serious diseases) as a backstop against a decline in our technological capacity.
And I do feel similarly about other technological solutions that blunt the impact of but do not eliminate some negative effect.
I have seen some cases of women who go into that line of work and it seemingly crushes their spirits, collapses their social networks, and ultimately puts them in an emotional condition that wrecks their ability to maintain a romantic connection. I think this impact is at least on the order of that of getting addicted to a hard drug, although it is probably easier to recover if you have support.
Although its most likely that there was some pre-existing mental condition that explains both that outcome and why they tried sex work in the first place.
I've talked to some girls who indicate the main thing keeping them from trying it themselves is their apparently overdeveloped sense of shame, and I'm like "okay but can you not hit on actual logical bases to avoid it, aside from the emotional aversion?"
(Lets be fair, I also DESPISE Multi-level marketing schemes and would love to nuke those from orbit, and would take measures to keep my kids from falling into that trap too, although I'd like to think my kids would know the math well enough to see why those won't work.) OF has many of the same aspects as MLMs when you look at how it works in practice, but you're burning up more than just your time and money if you try to take it seriously.
Yep, good to point out where we are different in our beliefs so the others don't catch on LOL.
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