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 -
The censorship problem is "how far do we go, or where do we draw the limit?" Even for the anti-censorship side, there's the problem of "some stuff is so beyond the pale that everyone agrees it should not be permitted", but where do you draw the line? People like to mock the judge who said "I know obscenity when I see it" but when you try to draw up rules, it's very difficult.
"Okay, we have to tolerate some stuff even if we don't like it ourselves". Sure, I agree. But sooner or later we land in the quagmire of "This is degenerate trash, do I have to defend this?" and maybe the answer is "yes, because the same rights apply to everyone, even the horrible people".
But then we sink deeper into the quagmire, because look at human nature. "It's only a drawing, it's only fiction, it's only AI-generated imagery of vore or guro or whatever" may be tolerated, but it won't stop there. "Why is it okay if it's a drawing but not a photo?" becomes "Why is it okay if it's AI-generated photo but not a real photo?"
It's about harm? It's about consent? It's okay, the legal age of consent in this country is twelve, so nothing illegal was done. The kid consented! (Their poor family sold them* to the abuser for a couple of thousand in local currency). The guy agreed I could eat his corpse!
I have no faith in shining human nature or at hard limits holding forever. What was formerly considered unthinkable perversion has now become accepted commonplace normality - look at blow jobs, for instance. What makes us think that in a future period, some form of paedophilia (true paedophilia, not "she was seventeen and three-quarters") won't become acceptable? "Oh well twelve year olds are mature enough nowadays to make up their own minds if they want to fuck a forty year old man or woman. After all, in ancient times, twelve year old girls were legal marriage age in Rome, but never will we give in on six year olds!"
And even twelve is not true paedophilia by strict definition, since that is puberty and true paedophilia is pre-pubertal. So "twelve is fine, ten is not" is the new hard limit, but wait a little longer and that limit, too, will soften.
More options
Context Copy link