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 is no "steelman" for pedophilia, unlike for racism (freedom of association), sexism (traditional gender roles), and homophobia (traditional sexual morality). There's no virtuous principle or sympathetic situation that causes people to think "hmm, maybe sex with kids isn't so black and white." So I expect the taboo to hold indefinitely barring a radical shift in the legal and social understanding of what childhood is and what children are.
As for the sequel's main character -- look, I grew up on early chan imageboards and the unfiltered early 2000s internet so I have a pretty high tolerance and probably a quite warped sense of what's within the bounds of good taste -- but even in my opinion, that's a 7 year old's face on a young woman's body. That's bad enough, but all the exploitative and opportunistic camera angels make it uncanny and perverse. I probably wouldn't play it unless they aged her up at least to adolescence.
EDIT: I'm not talking about the SJW version of "pedophilia" meaning attraction to women under 30. And yes I'm aware that people online like to motte and bailey the term in bad faith. I don't have any problem with people playing this or making this game, just saying it's not for me.
There is an alternative steelman of homophobia based on refusing to memory hole the AIDS crisis.
First, the AIDS crisis made every-one notice that homosexuality includes both Love is love nest builders and bath-house high scorers. That matters because lots of people go along with gay lib on paradigm of Love is love nest builders. Noticing forces a rethink.
That rethink may include a father deciding
The AIDS crisis had libertarians and gay friendly people saying "Unholy shit, that is a lot of sodomy!"Also the amount of gays that did not (and still don't, though anti-retrovirals have changed this somewhat) care about having and/or spreading AIDS gave and still gives a lot of people pause.
The "standard fuck party" clip from this documentary about bugchasing still makes the rounds on /pol/ from time to time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(2003_film)
Worth looking up the clip, it doesn't show any actual sex, it's some middle-aged gay guy giving a tour of the house where he hosts gay orgies. One of the other guys in the video, who is visibly very sickly, talks about how he doesn't care about being sick or potentially spreading it, he just wants to have fun.
I realize that "not all gay people" are like that, but given the massive amount of gays that do engage in such behaviors I think homophobia can be completely justified. But like you said, the "We just want to get married and live like normal people!" gays are carrying water for their hedonistic fellow gays. It also doesn't help when news stories of the "nest builder" gays being pedophile rapists come out, like this disgusting example:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-boys-horror-raised-global-075915383.html
And the (now deleted) article titled "Two Dads are Better Than One" about the same gay couple adopting a kid:
https://static.life.ru/posts/2013/07/115738/Snimok_ekrana_2013-07-01_v_12.40.27.png
Edit: BONUS ROUND, turns out the female journalist that wrote the puff piece about the gay pedophile couple wrote a response to the controversy. Accountability is nowhere to be found, but getting mad at American conservatives is! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582
I have a "want to get married and live like normal people!" gay brother, and even before he came out to me, the people who reliably made my skin crawl were the moralizers, the ones who can't watch someone live an alternative lifestyle without reaching for the pulpit. That impulse disturbs me more than anything happening behind the bush.
And yes, there are millions of gay men getting their backs blown out and gagging on cock behind that bush, and I seem to know half of them. That's what happens when you spend a questionable amount of time in gay spaces because the conversation is genuinely good (and the drinks are cheap). I'll keep it simple. When two consenting adults do something gross in a way that touches only the two of them, the harm doesn't fuck you in the ass or to the kid down the street. When their lifestyle does turn harmful, the fallout lands almost entirely on the people who opted in. I have zero appetite for assless chaps or golden showers. As long as nobody touches me up, which has never happened because I'd sock them, it stays squarely none of my business.
I'll turn my gaze to the strongest version of the other side, because I'm an even handed and bored person. Bugchasing is "real". The documentary exists. The visibly sick guy saying he doesn't care if he spreads it exists. The tail of the distribution is not empty.
There. Done being even handed. The "standard fuck party" clip recirculates on /pol/ for the same reason 2003 Rolling Stone "Bug Chasers" article went viral. It happened to be lurid, enraging, and claimed bugchasing accounted for up to a quarter of new HIV infections among gay men. That figure was downstream of a single source and fell apart on contact with reality, in part because Freeman had casually reclassified every barebacker as a bugchaser regardless of intent. When researchers actually combed profiles on a bareback-centric site, the share of HIV-positive men actually trying to infect partners came out around 1 percent. Most self-described "bugchasers" were roleplaying a fantasy they never acted on. Your feed is tuned to churn up that 1 percent because it enrages you, which means the sample is poisoned before you ever start counting. Base rates people. Look them up.
The most questionable things get signal-boosted to awareness. That is how the internet works. Nobody forwards clips of a gay accountant making lasagne for his husband, two mildly overweight lesbians arguing over oat milk, or some HIV-positive man taking his ART, remaining undetectable, and living a life so boring it would put /pol/ into a coma. The transgressive, and morally alarming material travels. Normality is busy tying laces. You can build an entire worldview out of the most alarming 0.1% of a group, but at that point you've given up on sociology. You've ended up producing pornography for your prejudices. And whoever enjoys that hobby should take up yoga and go fuck themselves.
My own anec-data, for whatever an n-of-my-social-graph is worth? I have the ethnographic essays, and after snowball sampling through the gay men I actually know, nobody could name a living bugchaser. Only the gray-haired ones remembered a few, and those few were dead. AIDS, obviously.
The calculus of harm has gone to bed, while some of the panic remains like a bad hangover from 2003. A virally suppressed person on antiretrovirals transmits HIV to sexual partners at a measured rate of zero. Howdy, PARTNER: we've logged tens of thousands of condomless acts between serodiscordant couples and recorded not one linked transmission when the positive partner was suppressed. "Undetectable equals untransmittable" is the CDC's official position, and that happens to be backed by the largest prospective evidence we have. Is there any problem better drugs can't cure?
Sigh. I really can't spare more effort for the old "some members of group X do something disgusting, therefore contempt for all of X is warranted." Run it against any large population and watch it generate nonsense. The worst 1 percent of evangelicals, of soldiers, of parents, of whatever demographic you happen to belong to, or dislike. That's where the ruin lies.
So sure, go off, kings (or queens) who disagree. I've made my peace with being one of the rare freaks in this thread who is actually open-minded and willing live, let other people live, or die.
This is meandering.
When I was younger we used to call gay people "faggots," which was the style at the time. Increasing acceptance and exposure (as well as the same stuff that eventually created "woke") rendered that inappropriate and impolite and the world verboten.
For a time in between those two states you would call someone a faggot if they were gay and obnoxious about it. You don't do that anymore but you can have some very important adjacent insights. Plenty of gay people are just like "straight men" who have sex with men. Plenty of are flaming gays and it's those who have a disproportionate mindshare in the minds of straight men and conservatives.
This is for good reason - they are socially aggressive, much more likely to sexually harass, culturally evangelical, beloved by straight women and therefore a distraction and a bunch of other shit.
Psychologically once you establish a culture without shame (and especially if it has widespread support like you see for gay and trans communities right now) things can go off the rails very fast. Drag queen story hour is fundamentally the same stuff as a gay couple who refuse to stop having sex in public (and unlike a straight couple make no effort to hide).
That couple is rare, as bug chasers are - but they have no guilt or shame and a social milieu which fully supports bonkers and inappropriate behavior.
Most gay people may in fact not be like this, but as many of my gay friends complain - they are culturally marginalized by gay men who are assholes or inappropriate (and those get support from the woke victim complex). Bug chasers are also rare but they are real and like any rare but high impact group they can cause problems.
Some of the bad behaviors are by no means rare however. Sexual harassment by gay men is crazy common. Once I stopped being young and athletic women stopped sexual harassing me (yay?) gay men never stopped. It's not a lot of them (but sadly it's more like 10% then 1%), but the ones who do it harass enough that it's a common experience.
Like most modern Americans I don't really have any issue with gay men (or any other demographic) that acts within the bounds of polite and appropriate behavior, but again enough people from these groups exist and they are metaphorically forced down our throats by pride initiatives and the woke (a similar annoying demographic is the militant lesbian who ex complains about manspreading on the subway but sits with her legs as far apart as she can because "men do it" and doesn't understand hip morphology).
Some of the bad behavior does have more direct impact on the rest of the population though. AIDS is a disease of the gay that took a lot of work to get into the straight population and this was caused by gay men who made zero effort to change their behavior.
Another similar problem (in the U.S. at least) is a rise in STIs and drug resistant STIs because gay men have hundreds of partners, refuse to use condoms and then fuck bi and "straight" people. Because they can't get pregnant and HIV is no longer a death sentence they refuse to use safe sex practices. Shut the fuck up and wrap your shit or have a reasonable number of partners, "benign" STIs are significantly more problematic for the female population.
So I do think some of the aggravation in this thread is coming from a reality based place.
I've logged an unfortunate number of hours in "gay" environs. Sadly I can't put that in my actual logbook or portfolio. Perhaps I'm not young (and was never particularly athletic), but I've never been sexually harassed. The closest was some four-eyes weirdo friend-of-an-acquaintance who was coked up, drunk to his man-tits, and convinced by the coca-ethylene to attempt to convince me that I wasn't straight. Very intense. Very retarded. I sat there in increasing discomfort, trying to tell him (politely) that I wasn't interested. Eventually he gave up and went off to go hit on other straight men, or I went off to get a pint and throw darts. I suspect I had a better hit rate. This was just a regular pub, on the seedy side - it had both pensioners and people propping up the Albanian GDP in the toilets.
Nothing else ever happened. I find it very funny when the gay men in actual gay places hit on me. It's good for my ego, or at least it was before I worked out, put on nice clothes, got a nice haircut and enjoyed attention from actual hot women. It's been known to happen. I don't blame them for trying (by which I mean the men). Yeah I'm fucking sitting there in a gay bar, notorious for hosting straight men first and foremost.
I can only say that I've done more time than you have, probably. But the world is a big place, and I don't claim to have performed an exhaustive or representative sampling of homosexual behavior on a global scale. All I can say is that the UK is as or more friendly to the gays than the States is. And it's fine. It's fucking Pride Month and I haven't seen anything ridiculous. I would have, I suppose if my little brother had shown up and I had a reason to expand his horizons. But no, as far as I'm concerned, things are fine.
Do I approve of this? You can guess. But there is no point to getting angry about it. The average straight man or even the above average straight man doesn't fuck hundreds of women raw because the latter have standards. The mid gay man can (but not necessarily does) fuck like a straight male supermodel because he's not restrained by feminine sexuality. You are complaining about men being manly men with other men. The straights would do it if they could. They just can't.
The male sex drive is so strong because it has to be to deal with female frigidity. You can clearly see what would happen if both partners had a woman's sex drive in lesbian couples; it's called lesbian bed death.
It is only by combining male horniness and aggression with female selectivity and passiveness that you get a healthy relationship. We're complements, designed by Gnon to bring out the best of each other. Gays demonstrate the worst of mankind; male sexuality unrestrained.
Kind of hard to take such profound arguments seriously when your usual argument is for removing the women's ability to select.
He makes the correct point in this case though.
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