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'm a few weeks late to this, ShiftUp dropped the reveal trailer to the Stellar Blade sequel.
For the non-gamers, Stellar Blade is a South Korean action adventure game released in 2024 on the PS5, and on PC a year later. It caught a ton of media attention for its "goonbait" protagonist EVE, her sex appeal was central to the game's marketing. EVE is based on a body-scan of South Korean model Shin Jae-eun, but it's obvious that her body proportions were deliberately exaggerated in the game. IGN France ran a preview piece calling EVE "a doll sexualized by someone you would think has never seen a woman", and issued an apology for that comment after getting called out. The game was a smashing success, sold millions of copies and became the champion game for the anti-woke.
Now the Stellar Blade sequel is self published, and will feature a new protagonist, Evie. The gameplay has also seemingly taken a different style, now set in a populated, linear city area as opposed to the post-apocalyptic world of the original. Now as per tradition, the studio is caught up in a controversy again, but from both sides. The wokes are saying Evie looks like a minor but is still sexualised, now which normal adult would jerk off to that...
Edit: forgot to put it here, some users on resetera also threatened to report the game to payment processors, who were delisting certain games from Steam and other platforms last year.
But the ShiftUp CEO dismissed those criticisms, and recently reposted a comic making fun of those complaints.
The non-wokes are upset because they wanted EVE, and Evie's assets are comparatively tame. And at least some of them (including Asmongold) agree she looks too young as well.
The biggest highlight for me is how "pedophile" has become the last truly potent scare word left in the discourse. But just like "sexist," "racist," and "homophobic" during the Gamergate era (which once forced constant defensive crouching and ritual apologies from those at the receiving end), the term is now being inflated and abused by both sides. Age-gap relationships between consenting adults, anime-style character design, and anything that triggers either tribe's sensitivities gets shoved under the label. Both sides are eager to fire this particular silver bullet at each other because it's the last remaining moral failing both can still agree is beyond the pale. Eventually, we're gonna roll our eyes at this too.
My previous opinion still holds. Expressed well by the top YouTube comment (at the time of posting): “Don't bend the knee to an internet moral police weirdo.”
I don’t entirely know why, but when I see a game like this, even though I’m not planning to play it, I feel a strong urge to defend it. It’s not pedophilia: it also happens when I see some weird furry game, or movie like “Human Centipede” or “Martyrs”, or some edgy online discussion forum or post (hence why I’m here). It’s not that I like or agree with any of these. But somehow I feel defending them protects the art that I do like and opinions I hold, which I believe most people today wouldn’t even consider controversial (although probably “weird”).
An explanation that I gestured to in the last comment: I can’t know how other people feel about my opinions without risking myself, and I’d certainly be condemned in more puritan times, which moral policing can lead to. But this is the slippery slope fallacy and thus I consider it a logically bad defense: it’s analogous to “I wish people wouldn’t get arrested for murder, because I (a non-murderer) don’t want the vague risk of being wrongly arrested”. Although it does apply to enforcement infrastructure (analogous to “I wish mass surveillance wasn't built to arrest murderers, because now it can be used by brutal totalitarians to arrest passive dissenters”; we can have cops and reduce most murders without privacy-crippling mass surveillance).
A better defense (IMO) for radical speech, is that even overall “bad” speech has some “good” parts, and you need those to prevent stagnation and decay (like inbreeding). For example, this site has a lot of opinions I disagree with, but occasionally I discover some important fact or argument I didn’t notice before, which aligns with my values (changing my object-level, like policy, opinion). I think (an opinion that’s becoming more common) woke’s rejection of uncomfortable speech has directly led to its groupthink (finding uncomfortable then rejecting milder and milder speech) and downfall. Or back to art, some great works contain vague pedophilia (or other edgy themes), like End of Evangelion and Serial Experiments Lain; these have directly inspired further great works that don’t contain the edgy themes, and I doubt we’d have the derivatives or anything matching their quality (from the perspective of anyone with any taste), without allowing the originals or something matching their edginess.
I'm glad we can say the quiet part out loud now. I'll go further, I'm much more petty and partisan about this. I'm inclined to defend what the wokes outrage against. I'd be perfectly fine with conservatives censoring homosexuality in television. Wokes rail against male gaze on principle. But they are perfectly capable of arresting the slippery slope short of censoring female gaze/gay oriented media. I don’t want to cede the rhetorical terrain or adopt their framework. Even when they latch onto real issues, like domestic violence or sexual assault, I’m deeply suspicious of letting them set the terms. Their track record shows they weaponise these issues as cudgels against outgroups. If someone is especially invested in race riots and sexual violence, more often than not, you'd be right to suspect their real priority is narrative control and status enforcement against whites and men. I think they're perfectly aware of this too, wokes rarely let you discuss men's issues without extracting ritual deference to feminism first. And why they breathlessly defended Amber Heard, because even if they can intellectually acknowledge the veracity of the verdictv, "women never lie about DV/SA" is just a flag to be defended at all costs.
I agree, but note this also involves many conservatives: I'm suspicious of anyone too passionate about censorship.
And the arguments for even mild censorship are weak. For example, censoring hardcore porn may slightly reduce domestic violence, but I'd prefer ways that don't restrict stable men, because there are downsides (even to men who don't prefer hardcore porn, as explained in GP). I'm sure everyone has some interest or characteristic (e.g. stereotype) that, if restricted, would reduce some kind of harm; so fairly implementing every restriction "for the greater good" restricts everyone, a nanny-state dystopia.
I disagree. Cable is dying, so television amounts to YouTube, Netflix, and every alternative; the power to censor anything more than realistic CSAM and government secrets from all of these would surely be abused (already DMCA is abused by false takedowns). And it may seem like a small consolation, but I'm sure there's some quality in gay porn that inspires better straight media; for example, a wholesome display of gay affection may be reused in a wholesome display of platonic or heterosexual romantic affection.
Furthermore, nobody can deny that objectively gayness exists. Related, I object to completely censoring homosexuality from children any more than heterosexuality: that means at minimum, they should be told in sex-ed that it exists and it's normal for some people to feel it. Because like it or not, some people are intrinsically gay, and trying to hide gayness from them invariably ends up hurting everyone involved: see those who come out in the most repressive communities, knowing their formerly-generous family will now try to kill them, uplifting and threatening their entire life, just to have consensual sex with another adult (or similarly-aged teenager under Romeo and Juliet morality).
However, I strongly believe that, to a reasonable extent, people should have the right not to see and hear media they don't like, and children should be barred from inappropriate (including sexual) media as much as possible without compromising privacy. This means that all children and adults who don't want to be exposed to homosexuality must endure sex-ed and plain "gay XYZ" advertisements, but beyond that, should have technology to block it, and a distributor intentionally circumventing this technology should be illegal. Offline, when mutual coexistence is impossible, laws and government should seek separation: for example, a gay culture growing in a deeply Christian community should (as it naturally will) be coerced to relocate if there's anywhere else (and vice versa). Likewise, graphic violence, porn, etc. should be allowed, but only distributed to those who present themselves as of-age and actively seeking it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link