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 -
That sounds like prostitution. This is a different sexual behavior than rape.
If Alice and Bob divide up the maintenance schedule for the shelter, and Alice subsequently offers sexual favours to Bob in exchange for his carrying out her share as well as his own, that would be prostitution.
Is he obligated to provide her with shelter?
Now requiring her to trade sex for it is a scummy thing to do. But it is not rape, that's the use of coercion or force to obtain sex from an unwilling partner.
If he controls the only safe shelter, he is obligated to not prevent her from using it.
Why?
I think a better question would be, "Why does he think he is justified in refusing her?".
Some possible answers to that question might lead one to the conclusion that he is justified, such as "I let her in last night and she tried to stab me.".
Of course you would think that, because you can't answer the question in a way that doesn't unfairly create a duty to one side.
It doesn't create a duty to one side.
If Alice controls the only safe shelter, she is obligated not to deny Bob access to it without a Good Reason.
If Alice demands sexual favours from Bob as a condition of shelter access, Alice has committed rape.
Yes it does.
"I want sex lol" is a Reason as Good as any other, and privileging sex beyond anything else is just as crooked as demanding labor for free.
An assertion that there are some prices which are deontologically invalid is ultimately an assertion that labor can be demanded for free, especially when no price the laborer wants can be asked aside from those you have conveniently (and without any associated moral hazard whatsoever, I'm sure) declared priceless.
A condition reality imposes- in this case, that a lack of shelter is fatal- does not create "unwillingness" on the part of those that require shelter (and an inability to agree on price would be fatal to that party anyway). The only condition with respect to reality is whether you accept the prices willing to survive, or whether you would rather die.
(Additionally, I understand that, for those who live in times where scarcity for some things is no longer the natural order, that acknowledging their privileges are indeed merely privileges induces some existential discomfort. If I perceived my sociofinancial salary was dependent on nobody understanding that, I would not understand that either.)
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