site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24302 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Perhaps some useful additional context: ShiftUp are also the developers of the gacha game Goddess of Victory: Nikke and that game has characters that I think could be argued are both children and sexualized. For example Alice or Liter.

On the main topic: I don't think it matters at all whether Evie looks particularly childlike or is particularly sexualized. She's not a real person and so her depiction and sexualization fail to have any of the features that make it bad when it's done to a real person. For any kind of depiction or action beyond a sexualized one I think most people understand this latter fact intuitively.

If you, as an individual, are aroused by a sexualized depiction of a minor then you may want to seek help from an appropriate therapist. But declaring, preemptively, that it is immoral to create fictionalized depictions because they might arouse pedophiles is insane.

A Tumblr post, amusingly, gets this right:

"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

I've only quoted the top post for brevity but the whole thread I've linked is good, IMO.

could be argued are both children

With tits like that?

There is a whole sub-genre of this stuff of the form "character who is clearly meant to be a child but with large breasts."

According to some people's sense, if it's a character with a child's proportions, a child's mannerisms and a child's face... but with tits tacked on - it's a child with tits, not an adult.

Fair enough. I find it hard to judge proportions, faces and mannerisms from pictures of anime girls (maybe it's easier to tell in motion), but the tits seemed like a tell-tale sign of clearly-not-a-child-anymore. But I grant your point.

Anime includes features like large eyes and a large head proportional to the body that make people think child anyway just by the style, so that shouldn't count.

Either that, or it all counts, and as such all fans of sexualized anime are actually pedophiles.

Of course, vanishingly few sex-negative folks or "wokes" believe this, but, like basically all "woke" criticism of any media, it's a convenient tool to reach for when one wants to criticize some piece of media that they dislike in a way that appears to be based on anything other than arbitrary personal preference.

Arguably, this is the very phenomenon happening with Blood Rain, as Stellar Blade, like other East Asian semi-realistic video games such as Capcom's Resident Evil or Square Enix's Final Fantasy, uses a stylized anime-inspired visual style in terms of character design, rather than going for actual human-like realism. The first game actually featured a support character named Lily who actually looks very similar to Evie in terms of hair and facial features (some have speculated that Evie is the child of Eve and Lily, which wouldn't be impossible given the technology of the setting, but also, seems both way too on the nose in name and out of left field in the relationships) and was also commented on as appearing younger-looking in part due to the anime-inspired style.

In any of these kerfuffles no one mentions the players who are into the gooner bait but are actually underage themselves, I remember what it was like being in the same age range as these characters and watching anime/playing jap gooner bait, you better believe I was getting a hardon and had zero qualms about it.

That's one of the weird things, right? As a 15 year old boy, if you find an anime girl age 17 to he attractive, that's fine! But the character stays the same age, as you get older, but that doesn’t mean your tastes automatically change with it.

I used "boy" and "girl" but I'm pretty sure this is fairly gender neutral; there's no shortage of adult women writing fanfic about teen boys, to my understanding. Although I suppose that also gets to the visual vs literary debate: is hentai worse than explicit fanfic in this regard?

In any of these kerfuffles no one mentions the players who are into the gooner bait but are actually underage themselves

With a general assertion that "sexuality isn't for subhumans" (which is what we actually mean by "underage"), are you really that surprised nobody looks at what said subhumans are actually doing?

Nobody cares about children and teenagers beyond the fact the right to abuse them can be (and is) handed out as a political kickback.

So, you are presumably okay with people possessing and distributing actual CSAM?

  • -23

The reason why CSAM shouldn't be possessed or distributed is because its production is inherently harmful. Not because it's disgusting.

My sympathies lean toward the side of "a grid of pixels shouldn't be illegal", but with CSAM there is a problem: it is easy to make CSAM in third-world countries, so there is no way for the US government to actually shut down production short of using international law enforcement or military force.

That said, this is the same US government that kept military forces in Afghanistan for many years, spending huge sums of taxpayer money, without eradicating child sexual abuse in the country. So it would be somewhat hypocritical of it to go really hard after the already-produced CSAM based on such a justification as I gave above, given that this government had a chance to stop child sexual abuse in Afghanistan and didn't do it.

I said "my sympathies lean", and I should clarify: I am generally extremely pro free speech, but I can definitely imagine exceptions: the fabled nuclear codes, a recipe to create a bioweapon that would kill 99% of the world population Stephen King style, etc.

is because its production is inherently harmful

Tell that to the Snapchat users; I'm pretty sure they've generated 90 if not 99% of all material that counts as this.

I'm sure they screamed did not consent to their finger pressing the send button.

I gotta imagine you'd see a lot of arguments-

"It's disgusting," "making it is terrible," "having this exist encourages production, consumption, and interest," various religious and specific ethical motivations etc etc.

Production is bad is probably the most clear and obvious bad outcome but the vast majority of people would be against drawn or AI versions.

Production is bad is probably the most clear and obvious bad outcome but the vast majority of people would be against drawn or AI versions.

I've actually wondered about how people would feel about a government making an "authorized list" of confirmed AI-generated CSAM with no CSAM in the training data, that would be the only legal form of such content to own. Assuming that the mere consumption of CSAM doesn't encourage victimization of real children, this seems like the best all around compromise, if you can figure out how to distribute it in a way the government can't easily track.

If the government can easily track it, it just becomes a blackmailer's wet dream. Although, we're in an era where "they fabricated all of the evidence connecting me to this" is an increasingly plausible claim, considering where generative AI is.

I'm definitely not comfortable with AI content trained on actual cp. That feels like extending the abuse of the victim into eternity.

I am 100% against CSAM existing in any capacity, but your objection raises a question - is it about training data? Would an AGI that can act based off of extrapolation salve your objections?

I mean, personally I think porn of real people should simply be illegal (outside of private production and consumption i.e. it's okay to take naked pictures of your spouse and enjoy them).

But in terms of a compromise within our current legal and social frameworks, yes, I think it makes sense to allow for AI-generated content so long as it's not derived from actual CSAM. Not healthy for the user, but that occurs to me as their problem, and I have no reason to believe it would make them more likely to actually engage in abuse.

And then there's written or drawn erotica which should also -- again I say in compromise with the current framework -- be unconstrained IMO. The idea that it should be illegal to write about or draw... pretty much anything strikes me as ludicrous. Especially given the ambiguity (re: age, etc.) inherent in many such works.

Thank you for indulging my curiosity!

Mandatory abortions for women who rape boys when?

That's an argument for banning production, not distribution or possession.

As anyone with small children will tell you, you get more of of what you tolerate.

If you tolerate the distribution and possession of child porn you are going to get more child porn. You may claim that you do not endorse it's production, but you will be the person enabling and encouraging it.

I'm only against those last 2 to the extent that they provide incentive to production. To whatever extent that they don't (e.g. perhaps existing images that were pulled from some FBI evidence locker), it's ridiculous that possession or distribution would be illegal. Unfortunately, it's one of those legal fights that doesn't seem possible to win, though. It's also hard to parse out exactly how much the extents involved here are, and some actual studies and models might be valuable, but I don't know if such scientific research exists for this kind of material.

Some people argue that the original victim is re-victimized each time the media is seen; I find this ridiculous as well, as there's no magical link between the markings on paper or pixels on a screen and the original person from whom the light was reflected and captured by a camera. In terms of the harms to the person who consume such media, I believe each individual is responsible for the harm that comes about from their choice to consume whatever media. If we were in a situation where so many people eschewed such responsibility that it was causing societal problems, I could see the argument that being illiberal in this case is worth the tradeoffs, but I don't think we're there, and I'm skeptical that we'd get there.

That said, who knows how fast society will change in the near future thanks to AI accelerating everything, and short-form social media content causing massive amounts of distributed media production by children. It's not a ridiculous concern, but one that I still think is wrong.

The harm would be from knowing that there are people out there looking at, and pleasuring themselves to, images or videos of you being abused.

I'm only against those last 2 to the extent that they provide incentive to production. To whatever extent that they don't (e.g. perhaps existing images that were pulled from some FBI evidence locker), it's ridiculous that possession or distribution would be illegal.

"So long as nobody was killed when the gang broke into the house and robbed all the items, it's ridiculous that the fence be prosecuted!"

Trying to divide out "but I didn't produce this shit" from the rest of it is where we get our current legal system of plea deals, non-prosecution, and egregious offences going unpunished because legal technicality.

"No, I didn't produce it, so it should be legal for me to possess it". "No, I'm not the producer, just the distributor". But that still leaves a market for the product, and "I won't produce it but I'm happy to deal with as many producers as possible and distribute their wares for a cut of the profits" means you get more of the product.

Look at OnlyFans and how that started off (a platform for creators!) and how it has ended up (come pimp your stable of hos on here!)

Some people argue that the original victim is re-victimized each time the media is seen; I find this ridiculous as well, as there's no magical link between the markings on paper or pixels on a screen and the original person from whom the light was reflected and captured by a camera.

I hope this is tongue-in-cheek because if meant seriously, it's a lack of empathy and theory of mind that borders on the shocking. The original images of abuse are only pixels and marks on paper, there's no magical link between the recordings of me raping my five year old kid and the kid himself! C'mon, don't blur out the features of the kid in the photos used in the article, I wanna be able to imagine forcing my cock down his throat! There's no magical link! So there's no harm done! MAP rights when?

of me raping my five year old kid and the kid himself

C'mon, don't blur out the features of the kid in the photos used in the article, I wanna be able to imagine forcing my cock down his throat! There's no magical link! So there's no harm done! MAP rights when?

So is your imagined paragraph written from the perspective of the rapist parent, or some random person looking at the picture afterwards? The perpetrator, if he even needs the picture to keep the memory fresh, surely should have more problems than the blurred-out features; if you are in a position to force him to blur the pixels in every copy of the picture he has, you could just jail him for the act.

Now that we're down to logic-chopping and splitting hairs, I think I know enough of your position on child rape not to continue this argument.

Is there anything you believe you came to know, beyond that I am happy to logic-chop and split hairs even when this topic is involved? If that's enough to make you not want to continue the argument, I'm sorry, but high-decoupling everything is one norm I can't get myself to feel bad about ramming down people's throats.

; I find this ridiculous as well, as there's no magical link between the markings on paper or pixels on a screen and the original person from whom the light was reflected and captured by a camera.

You need the concept "unknowingly harmed". You also need to give up the idea that harming X involves an interaction with X.

It's pretty normal to ban distribution or possession to prevent production - look at ivory.

Also, it's pretty normal to treat something produced by serious enough harm to be somewhat tainted by that harm. Interest in the Benin Bronzes declined considerably as it became known that they were essentially made by the worst slavers in Africa, we don't particularly like dealing with the outputs of Nazi 'research' labs (such as they were), etc. etc. That by itself isn't usually considered enough to merit a ban by itself, but e.g. consumption of actual torture porn or gore stuff is both rare and heavily frowned upon even when that doesn't affect production.

Neither argument applies to fiction, though.

It's pretty normal to ban distribution or possession to prevent production - look at ivory.

I'm not familiar with countries that ban possession of ivory, although its sale is often illegal.

There's also cases of goods whose possession is legal but production and distribution is not (for example, Portuguese drug policy).

Interest in the Benin Bronzes declined considerably as it became known that they were essentially made by the worst slavers in Africa

I mean, surely people always knew that those people were slavers? It's not exactly a secret what they were up to.

The bronzes are very prominently displayed in the British Museum and Nigeria apparently wants them back. They seem fairly popular though not at an all time high of popularity. Of course, the Benin bronzes were only indirectly enabled by slaving, so it's not really the same as your other examples.

consumption of actual torture porn or gore stuff is both rare and heavily frowned upon even when that doesn't affect production.

Indeed, but the consumption of fictional sexualized depiction of minors is heavily frowned upon by the general public even though it's been normalized in certain toaster fucker parts of the internet.

Neither argument applies to fiction, though.

Sure, but there's other arguments that apply to fiction. Such as:

  • People who produce or consume fictional disgusting material may have something wrong with them and belong in an institution rather than among a community of like minded people

  • People who produce or consume fictional disgusting material may eventually move on to producing or consuming real disgusting material

Etc.

I'm not familiar with countries that ban possession of ivory, although its sale is often illegal.

You're usually banned from importing it, even when it belongs to you, which is sort of a compromise. There are nasty cases of hundred-year-old pianos being destroyed by having the ivory hacked off the keys, things like that.

I mean, surely people always knew that those people were slavers? It's not exactly a secret what they were up to.

There's people and people. In the UK, the pressure to repatriate the bronzes and the buzz around them came from the progressive crowd who I think were pretty surprised to learn the historical context (I personally didn't know until maybe 2021?) and the pressure to export seems to have dropped considerably. You're right it's not the same, and maybe I was muddying the waters, but I don't know that many torture porn cases so I was feeling out the area.

there's other arguments that apply to fiction.

There are, but they're very far off "you are literally watching with pleasure a terrible thing being done to a real person that actually happened". And consequently their force is hugely diminished. Masturbating to George Floyd being suffocated to death is not the same as reading a KKK fantasy novel, even one in which equally lurid things happen.

The argument that "People who produce or consume fictional disgusting material may eventually move on to producing or consuming real disgusting material" has been trotted out many times and tends to come off very badly. DnD didn't make people satanists, nor did Doom. Grand Theft Auto did not product a wave of, well, grand theft auto. Porn is blamed for lots of nasty new sexual behaviours - mostly choking - but the direct evidential link seems weak and not in the direction that is given (it's a girl-desired thing not a guy-desired thing).

Likewise "People who produce or consume fictional disgusting material may have something wrong with them and belong in an institution" generally doesn't pass the smell test, unless you're willing to lock many, many people into a mental home and you're confident that your definition of 'disgusting' is widely shared and not going to come back to bite you.

In practice, many people privately consider these arguments hackneyed and their force has been dropping through the last century. There will always be crusaders and busybodies but equally there's a reason why governments generally avoid going on loud crusades against immoral private sexual acts that aren't actually crimes. Such crusades aren't popular and the government knows half its MPs will become collateral damage.

There's people and people. In the UK, the pressure to repatriate the bronzes and the buzz around them came from the progressive crowd who I think were pretty surprised to learn the historical context (I personally didn't know until maybe 2021?) and the pressure to export seems to have dropped considerably. You're right it's not the same, and maybe I was muddying the waters, but I don't know that many torture porn cases so I was feeling out the area.

The pressure to return artifacts has declined because of Peak Woke, not because of the specific connection of the Benin Bronzes to slavery. The claim that the Bronzes belong in the British Museum as lawful trophies of a just war against slavery is mostly advanced as a piece of right-wing trolling, although I believe it unironically.

The pressure to return artifacts has declined because of Peak Woke, not because of the specific connection of the Benin Bronzes to slavery.

This seems akin to arguing that the reason the water level dropped over the past few hours isn't because of the gravitational effects of the moon and the Sun on the Earth, it happened because of low tide. Taking for granted that Peak Woke being in the past is a thing (I must admit, there are enough witness accounts to make it plausible that in some places, some of the time, some of the most extreme of the woke effects have somewhat receded, even if my personal experience isn't concordant with it), it being in the past is something that happened due to many things that happened between then and now. I don't think anyone can truly know exactly what and how much each specific event went into the recession from Peak Woke, but it seems plausible that scratching the surface of some woke cause and finding previously-unseen facts that are embarrassing to the woke was a major part of it.

More comments

You don't think the two were somewhat related? I don't mean the trolling argument you mention, more that like Joe Biden's habit of sniffing women it was a case where applying woke principles became clearly problematic from woke's own perspective (utilitarian in the case of Biden, moral in the case of the BBs) in ways that couldn't be blamed on the Right, and produced a measurable reduction in enthusiasm from woke activists.

DnD didn't make people satanists, nor did Doom. Grand Theft Auto did not product a wave of, well, grand theft auto. Porn is blamed for lots of nasty new sexual behaviours - mostly choking - but the direct evidential link seems weak and not in the direction that is given (it's a girl-desired thing not a guy-desired thing).

Perhaps it's my viewpoint from 2026, but, none of these seem as shocking or disgusting as sexualized depictions of children. It seems obviously false that there is no media you can consume habitually that has an effect on your behavior or beliefs. Ultimately that boils down to an argument against the existence of culture.

you think 10% of Japan and many, many teenage boys who like goth loli should be literally locked in a mental home.

Japan seems like a profoundly ill society, so I'm pretty comfortable biting that bullet.

In practice, many people privately consider these arguments hackneyed and their force has been dropping through the last century

Indeed, but most people still see consuming this stuff as disgusting and at the very least indicating people who shouldn't be alone with children, even if they don't think it should be literally illegal.

Either we are talking about different things, or your disgust is stronger than many. Are you okay with a chaste yuri manga that depicts two middle school girls kissing? Or are you talking about depictions of raping a baby?

(Sorry to get sordid, but one sort of has to given the context. Another reason why these discussions get increasingly difficult when they have real stakes.)

You also just have to deal with the fact that not everyone wants to bite your bullets. I have read said yuri manga, and think OP's trailer looked fine, and I don't feel bad about this and have no intention of going to jail for it. I am therefore incentivised to a) dismiss any arguments of this kind in any other field knowing that one day you will try to come for me, and b) look very very carefully for any of your behaviours that could be used to divert the mob. (I don't mean that as a threat, obviously, I'm discussing the general case.) Are you sure that a critical number of your countrymen aren’t concerned with you (hypothetically) playing a game where you can murder prostitutes? That you post here, in this known den of sluggishly schizophrenic incel right-wing racists?

In practice everyone kind of understands that pursuing these kinds of cases with vigour gets really nasty really quickly which is why we still have a broadly-permissive society. I would strongly encourage you to read this post about how Australia's laws unintentionally drove one of our posters to attempting suicide. This stuff has real consequences.

More comments

Censorship is very dangerous and a very bright line needs to be drawn around any exceptions made to the general anti-censorship principle. Documentation of crimes in the real world is a much better place to draw this line than things like obscene subject matter or a prurient tone; there's much less room for slope-slipping and constant renegotiation of norms. (I would actually be in favor of much harsher treatment of the live action porn industry in general, though, for much the same reason - it's just a thin conceptual shell of "speech" over prostitution.)

There are arguments against that that are not primarily based on "it's disgusting to me", though of course the line is thin ("disgusting to me" is easily turned into a seemingly less-egotistical "I believe it damaging to the consumer's psyche/society" at no cost).

("disgusting to me" is easily turned into a seemingly less-egotistical "I believe it damaging to the consumer's psyche/society" at no cost).

While this is true, little-l liberalism has long believed that a certain amount of "harmless disgust" or "low-impact psychological damage" should be present in society.

There are some pretty gruesome horror movies out there, that would shock and dismay a lot of unprepared people. But instead of banning them, we trust that individual consumers will avoid things they think will make them unhappy.

How harmless/low-impact is it? The Montreal shooter clearly thought easy access to, and mass dissemination of, and mass consumption of, porn was not harmless.

The problem is the slippery slope, and that can't be simply shrugged off as "pfft, that's only a fallacy". Tolerance leads to pressure for tolerance of the more extreme, little by little, and then acceptance, and then celebration (look at Pride Month). I did find the outrage over "Pride has become too family-friendly and wholesome now! it's supposed to be kinky and obscene!" funny, however.

I'm seeing it in my own country right now with pressure to change elements of the safeguards around the limited form of abortion access we legalised six years ago. I'm not surprised by this, because I knew it would come, seeing the way things went in other countries and the open declaration by pro-abortion activists back then that this was just the beginning.

But this is how it happens: no, we don't approve of this thing, but it shouldn't be illegal, however we will put safeguards in place so it will go this far and no further. Time passes, it becomes an accepted thing, then the next move is "well do we really need this particular safeguard? it only hurts and doesn't help" and then bit by bit things get chipped away, people become accustomed to "it was always like this", so the old views on harm/impact are lost, and now there's a new "well this is okay, it's normal even, but that is not good" standard.

Then, in time, the "that's not good" becomes the pressure point for "we don't approve but it shouldn't be illegal".

Move the needle on "this is only fictional/only pixels on screen" and "of course most normal people won't even look at this stuff but if it keeps the real sickos from going out and committing offences then it's worth decriminalising it" and in time there will be the dares of teenage boys to "did you watch this baby-rape animatic? no? chicken!" and here we go again: "Dear Abby, my twelve year old son watched baby rape porn at a friend's house, how do I talk to him about this?"

However, liberalism only persists so long as "the people who can suffer from low-impact psychological damage should not be helped and to a point deserve it" does. Once that's gone, liberalism "degrades into" progressivism, where the damage goes from descriptive (something that happens to people) to prescriptive (something that should specifically be visited on the outgroup).

Wut?

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

This is in reference to the production of fiction.

Why is the line drawn at fiction?

Because characters in fiction aren't real? The thing that is bad about CSAM is the part where a person was abused to make it. There's no equivalent in fiction.

I see your point, but it's two-sided. The demands for representation in fiction and media, for example, are a counter to "it's only fiction, it won't change anything".

No, it won't make someone who has no attraction to fourteen year olds want to fuck a fourteen year old. But someone who does have the possibility of that? Reading about it can become its own form of addiction, like wanting more and more transgressive porn. And then fiction isn't enough any more, you want the real thing. And there's no easy way to tell, amongst a bunch of teens reading and writing NSFW fanfiction, who has the seeds of that which will develop into a problem later.

It's a bit like "why do you want a girlfriend, you can have porn?" Because porn isn't enough, people do want romantic partners if they can get them.

I do acknowledge it's tricky. I read horror fiction, and I don't want to mass-murder anyone or summon up demonic spirits or unleash mind-shattering Lovecraftian entities on the world, and someone saying "but there must be something wrong with you to read that kind of stuff" is annoying. On the other hand, getting taboos made acceptable under the guise of "it's only fiction" will also be used by those who really do want to fuck fourteen year olds, or six year olds, or consume imagery of small children being tortured and abused.

"It's only fiction" when someone likes that kind of thing does make our ancestral hackles rise, and maybe there's a good reason for it (see how the Saw franchise has devolved into horror porn for the sake of it, or any other long-running horror movie franchise). I thought the premise of the Saw movies from the start was disgusting, but hey, splatterpunk was also a thing way back and almost killed off horror fiction for good at the time because "how gross and disgusting can I go?" in the absence of anything else isn't good enough.

"I like reading and looking at images of small children being tortured and raped" may be fine because 'it's only fiction, I would never in reality', but still would you let that person babysit your six year old? Even if otherwise they're a great person and fun and smart?

On the other hand, getting taboos made acceptable under the guise of "it's only fiction" will also be used by those who really do want to fuck fourteen year olds, or six year olds, or consume imagery of small children being tortured and abused.

One of those things is something pretty much every male goes through during at least a few years of his life. It's impolite in polite society, however, to even speculate whether or not it's supposed to go away once the young man goes past the age of majority.

More comments

That's an argument against production, not consumption. In any case, it's easy enough to come up with harms from consumption of fictionalized sexualized children (see other responses in this thread).

It is a an argument about consumption as well.

A - To what extent does a child have to have their stop the worst moment of their life from being circulated?

B - That consumption of real CSAM is a form of demand, and demand leads to increasing supply to meet demand.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats