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 -
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).
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?"
More options
Context Copy link
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).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link