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 don't see why not. I think you're blowing it massively out of proportion. Eight year old girls, just like my mother's generation, are aware that people treat pretty girls better, that cosmetics are products meant to make you prettier, and that they're exciting and adult. They don't need social media to know that, (though yes I'm sure social media hammers it home) just eyes and ears. The reason my mother's generation weren't asking for skincare products for Christmas was nothing to do with the purity of youth and everything to do with the fact that their parents would have blown a gasket at them 'painting themselves' too soon (or in the case of my grandmother, at all). Given the reality that people do care about looks, even at that age, a quiet conversation and a provision of age-appropriate cosmetic products seems potentially a far kinder thing to do than lying about how real beauty is on the inside. My mother's school like most girls' schools had deliberately drab uniforms and all the girls hated being forcibly uglified.
You've been bouncing around between quite a lot of things. And you can care about any and all of them, it's a free country, but when you're throwing out bans all over the place (no broadcast media starring children, no social media, no smartphones, no uploaded home videos (does that extend to no uploaded photos?)) then it kind of helps if you're specific. If you're really worried about the mental health of child actors, okay, there's maybe stuff the industry could do, and indeed they already do it. The Potter actors turned out basically fine. If you're worried about children being sexually groomed, then there's also things you can do (whilst bearing in mind that AFAIK that kind of stuff mostly happens in the home or at school, in the in-person community). If you're worried about depression and body anxiety, then let's see if we can isolate slightly more where that's coming from (and personally I do think it has a lot to do with academic pressure) and how large the effect size is. Those graphs are interesting but they are relative measures - the first covers only standard deviations, the second is about percentages of people who already report depression. To take a deliberately absurd example, I would not be willing to make sweeping changes to society because the average number of self-poisonings have moved from 2 to 4.
I am totally open to large RCTs with banning/controlling use of smartphones to see the effect on these metrics, and I support banning or heavily restricting smartphones in schools, at least for now.
With regards to spiritual commitments, then we are much closer to 'moral panic' territory and I get increasingly wary. I'm as keen as anyone not to foist sexual topics on children too soon, that's not quite the same as 'protecting their purity' and I can tell you from experience that endeavors to impose purity in an impure world can be both stressful and harmful. Even to the extent that I care about this, I care about lots of things and there is only a certain level to which I am happy to trade them off against the sanctity of childhood. "Think of the children!" became a punchline precisely because it allowed so many busybodies to make nuisances of themselves, which was because childhood can be plausibly made to touch so many things. I do not want to live in a world primarily optimised for the health and purity of children.
I still think you're constructing a strawman to make me sound ridiculous. I'm not demanding that our entire culture be systematically overhauled, root and branch, to optimise for the health and purity of children. I simply think a) for variety of reasons (including but not limited to premature sexualisation, grooming and body image issues) smartphones and social media are really bad for children and teenagers, and parents should not buy smartphones for their children; and b) it's weird that Western societies collectively think that child labour is bad, except child labour in the entertainment industries.
There. That's it. That's the extent of my opinion. Anything beyond that is you knowingly putting words in my mouth.
Not knowingly. I thought that's where you seemed to be pointing, and I'm relieved to find I'm wrong.
I agree to a) with caveats.
With reference to b) I don't think people consider acting child labour, rightly or wrongly. I am personally somewhat in favour of child labour - I think the current system has basically turned into "we (society) will love and support you and do anything for you right up until age 18/21, at which point you're on your own". The looming withdrawal of support and the transition to an entirely unknown form of society is a huge source of stress for children. I remember myself and my peers absolutely dreading 'employment' which we had built up in our minds as a sort of left-wing caricature of abuse and exploitation. If we could end school days a few hours early and have children work with their parents for free or for a nominal amount of money, continuing school for a couple of extra years if necessary to make up the time, I would consider that a cool proposal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link