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 -
It's a very basic concept that isn't being used pedophilia. If you don't have this concept, you have to accept the Orwellian newspeak idea that in California, 17 year olds can't consent. The notion of scientific consent ability divorces ability to consent from the local law. It says that the law might be wrong in many cases, which is true. It is trivially true that if you allow real thought on the topic instead of no thought, pedophiles might make some arguments. However, if I were you, I'd have more faith that you can figure out using reason why 5 year olds can't scientifically consent, and why people who claim otherwise are factually wrong.
The character is in high school. She is designed to look 17 or 18. It doesn't say how old she is exactly or what year she is in but in Japan people attend high school at 18 years old.
I think everyone understands that age of consent laws are arbitrary and when the law says someone can legally consent does not necessarily correlate to when someone actually has enough agency to consent. Age of consent various from state to state and from country to country, and everyone knows this does not mean that teenagers in Alabama are ready for sex earlier than teenagers in California. This is no less true of age restrictions on everything else, from driving to enlisting to signing a loan.
Inventing a concept like "scientific consent" just sounds suspiciously like an attempt to punt. Even if you and I agree that five-year-olds cannot meaningfully consent and most 17-year-olds can, if you reject age-constricted consent and you just want go on vibes, the door is open, yes, for someone to argue that a five-year-old has enough awareness and agency to consent. (If you think this is absurd, enjoy some Piers Anthony).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link