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 -
It's bizarre to react to child abuse by taking power away from the child and concentrating it in the hands of their abusers. Parents abuse some children who made a name for themselves and a lot of money, you take the childrens' ability to make money and fame away and leave them with their child abusing parents as a result? Why?
I'm guessing you blank slated it and assumed that Hollywood caused the abuse in the cases you cited, not the parents. That would be a red herring. Make no mistake, these families are mentally ill, parent and child. Jeanette McCurdy has inherited bipolar/borderline personality disorder. If she were instrinsically non-mentally ill, she would be enjoying being rich and famous. She dwells on the past not because her mom was a bitch, but because she's a bitch too, and she's in a protracted bitch-fight with her mom. Hollywood didn't do it to either of them. The same goes for when these Hollywood narcissists (tip: fame seekers tend to be narcissists) claim sexual abuse. Normal people just get over a sexual encounter they later regretted. They're in therapy 20 years later because they are mentally ill and would have arrived in therapy anyways, blaming something extrinsic is just a narcissistic coping mechanism they come up with, often with their therapist who is getting paid a lot to feed their egos. And in both cases people fall for their publicly stated copes and try to transform society to be an overall worse place based on the feverish delusions of mentally ill people. Witch-hunt high status men who had sex, take even more liberty away from children, yes that's the recipe for Utopia, sure.
Uhh, no? I literally have no idea where you got that impression. The post begins with a lengthy preamble talking about a child who was horrifically abused by his father, not by Hollywood.
Jennette McCurdy specifically alleges that Dan Schneider, the creator of iCarly, engaged in some deeply suspect behaviour on-set. She is far from the only child actor who worked with Schneider to make similar claims. I don't know what, specifically, you're claiming Hollywood "didn't do" to McCurdy, but Hollywood did do something to her.
It's meaningless to talk about children "regretting" sexual encounters, because children cannot consent to sex and every sexual act between an adult and a prepubescent child is statutory rape.
In that part I was referencing the Weinstein scandal for the most part. AFAIK non of those women claimed to be underage when they allegedly had sex with him.
However, it would fit Epstein too, as I think those women were all old enough to scientifically consent and then regret. McCurdy was around that age during her iCarly career so, I guess it would apply to her too.
That guy was creepy, not the part where she got rich and famous.
I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing up adult women who claimed to be the victims of sexual misconduct when my post was specifically (and very explicitly) about child actors of both sexes.
The pilot was filmed in January of 2007, when she was fourteen. I have no idea what "scientifically consent" is supposed to mean, but it sounds extremely noncey. California's legal age of consent is eighteen.
They have something in common which I discussed above. If you can't figure it out, I recommend this book. Hint: it's somewhere in this block of text
...
Whether or not someone is smart enough to consent to sex, independent of the legal fiction of their present country. A useful distinction for speaking to someone based in the 21st century Earth region of space time, since various factors unknown to them have causes many of their governments to make legal ages of consent above their populations median scientific age of consent.
Stop that. It's like saying using the word noncey sounds extremely British-prole.
This is literally not even a grammatical sentence. If you're going to go full what-if-the-child-consents-tho, you could at least do me the courtesy of doing so in a semantically accurate fashion.
So you've never heard „it's giving cringe” before? And your big retort is to go primary school English teacher / grammar Nazi on me? For real?
I don't see the point in debating the ethics of child labour with an admitted nonce. The inferential distance is just too wide. Best of luck to you.
Slander! I never admitted to being a single use byte string!
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