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 -
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.
Maybe I'm not someone who's hung up on labels as much as another person is but frankly, I don't give a damn whether it's a black cat or a white cat so long as it catches mice. Call it tyrannical, call it freedom, call it whatever the hell you want; I really don't care. What matters is whether you end up a better society or not. That's the real test. Not whether the government is right.
People who are incapable of understanding harm until after it's already happened to them are the ones most susceptible to being harmed and being negatively impacted. The best way to avoid getting cancer is to not lead lifestyles that are conducive to fostering it. There's nothing prejudicial about saying to someone "look if you don't want to die of lung cancer, don't smoke." If you're someone that truly wants to make good decisions and stay out of harm's way, then the first thing to 'not' do is smoke. Whatever else someone's predisposition may be. "No raindrop ever considers itself responsible for the flood." A societal attitude that says "I'm not personally for this choice, but I respect someone's right to pursue it," makes an implicit demand upon themselves and others that even if they don't partake of the activities that lead to bad outcomes, one should be obligated to permanently live at risk being surrounded by those bad influences. You're still a part of the problem. The fact that you aren't the source of it doesn't mean you aren't a contributor.
You don't need to be "maximally rational" to perform a basic risk to reward calculus. As an individual, sure, you can do whatever you want. But the state has to concern itself with the collective health and welfare of the society as a whole. And you can be as crazy and stupid as you want, but that doesn't mean you need to receive state assistance for doing so. You can collect your Darwin award for that. I've done innumerable ignorant things in my life. Never once have I done something stupid.
I don't particularly endorse the State subsidizing bad behavior, at least the kind that imposes significant negative externalities. At least not till the world becomes so ridiculously rich that even the US of A today looks like a ghetto, which I do think is a very real possibility.
At the same time, I am very leery of States attempting to ban or onerously restrict the activities of consenting, sane and intelligent people. I am okay with safeguards for those who do not meet that cut, children shouldn't be kicked out of home at the age of six and told to fend for themselves.
The problem with setting your metric as whatever produces a "better" society is that there is far from perfect consensus on what counts as better. There are idiots who looks at nuclear power and cheap energy with enormous material abundance and think nah, ban that shit. This is not a retreat into complete epistemic uncertainty or helplessness, most people do agree that a society that is richer, healthier and smarter is generally good. Yet I am concerned by the sheer number of people who disapprove of the idea of turning Mercury into a Dyson Swarm/Matrioshka Brain. It's
freecheap real estate and a lot of negentropy for the taking. Or the idea that we should become biological immortal or genetically enhance our cognition and eliminate all disease.The benefit of strongly valuing personal liberty is that it allows the free market for ideas to flourish. People and societies that make smart decisions win in the end, most of the time.
Don't know what you're talking about here. There are plenty of places in the US that resemble third world countries. I grew up in the hood myself.
The whole notion of "two consenting adults" was always a fallacy because the world itself is more than two consenting adults. What two consenting adults do on the moon is irrelevant to everyone else because there's nobody else to have an opinion about it. So only on Gilligan's island do arguments like that have any real merit.
Unfortunately that doesn't absolve any society on Earth from having to take a stance on the matter. All I can tell you as one individual is what kind of society I feel most at home in and would like to live in. Compromises have to be made on all sides and nobody is going to get 100% of what they want. But if you want to take things item by item, you can always ask yourself which parties benefit and which ones lose by restricting or banning certain activities? I've never been one of those people who accepts the prevailing western ethic that says "do whatever you want, your happiness is all that matters." The notion that stress is to be avoided at all costs or that something is "bad" if it inhibits your right sacrifice the good for what makes you happy in the moment is an ethic that needs to be taken out to pasture and shot.
Even among some of the most restrictive societies on Earth are not entirely against personal liberty. They just don't conceive of it the same way others do. Why don't I care about the opinion or personal choice of some rando on the other side of the world? Because he literally has 'zero' ability to affect or impact me. Why do I care about the opinion or personal choice of my community? Because I have to live here with the rest of them.
"You think personal liberty is you doing what you want. I am not against personal liberty, I merely have a different conception of it. My conception is very similar, it is you doing what I want" -- Kim Jong Un, probably
— Tretiak, probably
Pick any, they can all make the same statement. Substitute "Allah" or "God" in appropriate places for theocratic versions.
Is America the only country that has “liberty,” according to you?
You're off by one.
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