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 -
So onlyfans owner has died of cancer.
Which means that in the next 72 hours we will hear a lot of hot takes about onlyfans. Then it will be Trump all over again.
One of the things I noticed when trawling reddit was absolute lack of sympathy from anyone. The guy may have been the most exposed to culture war dude in the world - some hate him because of onlyfans, some hate him because he is jewish and aipac donor.
For onlyfans - I don't think this is boon for humanity. And I think in a way it is just Sports Betting but for women. Mild to severe ruin of your life for the slim chance to make it big. There could be such things as too many creators, too many influences, too many habibis living in Dubai and Bali.
Society seems to have lost the middle ground options between hating something + banning it and allowing it + enthusiastically supporting it.
I'm generally in favor of more things being legal, but heavily discouraged and frowned upon.
It never had it because "legal but we hate it" isn't a stable state of affairs. Sometimes something stays beneath broad notice long enough to remain legal even if those in the know consider it shameful, but if you actively try to position something as legal-but-shameful, society is inevitably going to creep toward one of the poles. Either everyone hates it enough to ban it, or people are indifferent enough that a dedicated fringe movement can work to remove the stigma. I'm not even sure it warrants pointing out the many, many examples of this at play over the last many decades.
Agreed that it is not currently a stable state of affairs, but I think that is a product of the current cultures views on the role of government and how the government chooses to behave (like whether they choose to follow the constitution).
The prohibition movement started in the 1820's, so it took them a century to build enough momentum and then eventually ban alcohol. And then the ban failed in clear ways and they reversed it.
Tobacco has been grandfathered into legality.
There are also many local laws on the books all around the country that ban "sodomy". Certainly enough to make it into a national law, but that was never done.
I think for a long time there was a very steep hill to climb to ban something at the national level, even if it was hated and reviled. You needed more like 70-80% general approval for a ban rather than just 50%+1 for a single election. Nowadays it does feel more like 50%+1 for a single election is enough to get anything banned. And overturning the ban requires something like the 70-80% general support (like Marijuana legalization).
It is reasonable and rational for any vested interests in a product/activity to get very worried when approval levels for their thing dip below 55%.
I think there is a stable-ish regime of "legal, but regulated so heavily that its only profitable on the absolute margins."
Zoning rules that keep them from being within 5000 feet of a school, bans from advertising on television, heightened liability for harms, special insurance they have to purchase, that sort of thing.
So the ultimate effect is that these activities are run by small outfits with limited capacity (i.e. not industrialized) and/or are pushed to the absolute outskirts of society. Just to keep them from proliferating, I guess.
But Capitalism will be continually seeking ways to route around these regulations and will probably eventually hit on a strategy or loophole that brings them out of hiding.
What are: schemes proposed by gun control advocates to strip us of Constitutional rights, but pretend otherwise.
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