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 UK Home Office just published a guide for asylum seekers on... how not to rape women.
Some extracts from this 9-page document:
What could happen if you do not follow those rules?
Prime Minister Andy Burnham defended the booklet saying the government wanted to make UK law "explicitly clear".
Finland has also been offering classes on "how to behave towards women" since... 2016. The fact that a government department, under UK Labour, produced a 9-page guide on these points, in this register, suggests that those migrant crime statistics are not so trivial after all. Incredible.
In a time where even legal immigration has become THE hot button topic for the right and even parts of the left, shouldn't it logically follow that people who treat the law and age of consent as optional are not blending in with the doctors and engineers if you DON'T want to harden public opinion against immigration? It's like they're not even trying.
In principle, I don't see a problem here. If the concept of "asylum" is coherent at all, then we shouldn't be looking to vet asylum seekers for whether they're good additions to the country, the way would ordinary immigrants - any more than hospitals ask for patients to send in resumes in triplicate. Of course some of the refugees you're temporarily taking in out of humanitarian concerns will be ill-suited to coexisting with the locals; by all rights your standards for Jews you are willing to hide in your basement when the Gestapo are on the prowl should be lower than your standards for peacetime houseguests. A booklet like this only looks off if you take it for granted that "asylum seeker" is nothing but a fancy word for "immigrant". Which is understandable in the current status quo, but it's not the booklet that's at fault.
Putting aside the euphemism of asylum seeker, I think your argument is somewhat flawed.
Yes, true refugees probably should have a lower standard relative to an immigrant. But there comes a point where the damage caused by refugees outweighs the moral benefit of taking them in.
I think “they rape so much we need to explain ‘rape is bad’” is the line.
The funny thing about rape is the west only made rape illegal in around 1865. It’s not even that ancient of a thing that was practiced in Western Society. A civilized advanced society still had rape legal only 80 years ago.
The interesting thing here is that it’s the asylum seekers who think they have a right to rape the British. That says more about who thinks who has power.
The group that has access to another groups women is generally in power. The group politely asking to not rape their women is generally not politically powerful.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is nowadays to track down the actual Code Noirs in regards to treatment of slaves in the American South?
To quote;
source
Now, there is a valid arguement to be made that the enforcement of said laws wasn't exactly strict, or that there wasn't fair and equatible treatment thereof. But you can't say that, by the written law on paper, that the situation was a case of 'It's free real estate!' for people to do whatever they want with thier female slaves.
And, yes, this is only one case of a very specific state in regards to thier treatment on slaves. But it was also put to paper in 1724. I don't have the time to invest to track down and compare all Code Noirs from that particular time period, or do a comparative analysis on how things changed over time leading up to the Civil War.
More options
Context Copy link
Rape was not legal in the West before slavery was abolished. Slaves just didn't count as "people" and so you were allowed to do many things to slaves that were crimes if done to non-slaves.
Rape was illegal long before 1865. The abolition of slavery did not (finally) criminalize rape; it just added former slaves to the category of people to whom legal protections (theoretically) apply.
I really dislike this disingenuous form of argumentation.
Furthermore I'm pretty sure it wasn't legal to rape other people's slaves at any point -- I don't think it was that common actually for slaves not to be considered "people"; the sticking point was that they were people who you owned. And what's the point of owning someone if you can't have sex with them?
More options
Context Copy link
Do Britains count as people to the asylum seeking groups? Or are they not their people to them?
I think this is where I see the parallel. The asylum seekers don’t view Britains as their tribe and hence the protections from rape don’t apply in their worldview just as Americans didn’t view blacks as people.
You are arguing that Britains were being raped in the modern sense that has been illegal for a long time and I guess I would agree with. My argument is the rape gangs were raping in the far more disrespectful sense that the West even condoned fairly recently of allowing the rape of a rival lesser tribe.
Protections from rape don't apply in their worldview because they are from cultures where rape of their own women is more of a property crime (offense against the woman's father/husband) than a personal violation. Women behaving in their culture the way British women do (i.e., walking around freely not under the obvious protection of a man) are also viewed as fair game.
If they view it as a property crime then me comparing it to raping slaves would seem to be the same thing?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Although it would also be a contrarian argument, I think it might be fair to say that rape in the modern sense was only made illegal when marital rape was, which was even more recently. That's because it completed a framing shift to ongoing consent; ancient rape was a major crime but a property crime, and the shift to the current understanding was a gradual one.
I'd argue that rape "in the modern sense" has been illegal for centuries. As with abolition, the criminalization of marital rape simply expanded the category of people to whom legal protections against criminal assault applied. (Wives were in a sense considered property of their husbands- much as it used to be legal to beat your children.) You can still read people arguing that marriage implies permanent unconditional consent and therefore marital rape doesn't/shouldn't exist.
Which is why I find @RandomRanger's argument that Africans are not human beings like us unconvincing; low IQ people have problems modeling other people's minds, showing empathy, or thinking about consequences, but it's also downstream of culture. Many Muslim immigrants are not particularly low IQ, but it's their culture that tells them women are property and caring how a woman feels about being raped is like caring how a chicken feels about being eaten. The ancients likewise considered rape a property crime, not because they couldn't understand that women had feelings and didn't like being raped, but because that just wasn't part of their moral framework.
I'm sure culture is one input, but I still think this is over-weighting it. There are real differences in moral emphasis and social control. The profiles of Pakistani grooming gangs and the black men in that video track more closely with impulsivity, low future orientation, weak impulse control, and the simple absence of strong deterrent in low trust environments. I'm not a hardcore HBDer, but there is a genetic component to culture, and human behaviour is driven by continuous feedback loop between genetics and culture.
I don't disagree that there is a hereditary component and that genes affect behavior (and thus culture). I would argue that an African or Arab raised in a Western culture might still be comparatively low in intelligence, impulse control, etc., but would be much less likely to be an amoral barbarian incapable of understanding that rape is bad. We know that African Americans are more likely to be criminals, 13/52 and all that, for reasons HBDers recite endlessly, but the vast majority of African Americans do not act like those South African men.
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
What country are you referring to here? As far as I'm aware, rape has been illegal for centuries even in the now third world societies. Do you mean age of consent and/or marital rape?
I thought it was obvious by saying 1865. That would include rape of slaves. I included 80 years ago too because Japan had comfort women during WW2. I think that’s the limits of wealthy nations doing rape recently. Some passport bro stuff still has huge power imbalances but not quite rape. Christopher Columbus did rape with native girls. One of the founding stories of Rome was the Raping of the Sabine.
The my main point is that asylum seekers doing raping is quite odd because it’s usually the more educated and advanced people doing the raping historically. Rape is disrespectful to British in ways that other crime would not be.
But we're discussing rape as a "public security" issue in peacetime. The "random strangers in an alley rip off a teenager's clothes and force themselves on her at 3am" kind, where the perps do not belong to the educated and advanced profile. That has been a crime for centuries, and remains an ambient problem in third world societies. Not really comparable to wartime atrocities IMO. And many of these societies do criminalise that kind of rape, but are hindered by structural challenges in actually enforcing the law. Now China is an advanced country, but marital rape is "legal" there. Yet Chinese men in the west rank bottom in all crime statistics.
Which would be fine if it was peacetime.
But here, one section of the populace is running cover for their very literal footsoldiers, which serves to encourage them to use the local(s as) comfort women.
That doesn't sound like peacetime to me.
This sort of thing is only rape if you think the locals have the right to their own bodies, but judging by how they have reacted to being raped, I think the upper class's view (the people running that cover and the people voting for it[1]) that they do not is completely justified. Americans justified slavery pre-1860 with this observation as well.
By contrast, if you think they do own themselves, the excuses the upper class gave for that were literally "we don't want to give the local populace an excuse to start fighting our
migrantsoccupation force". Though in defense of inaction, rapes are basically just the equivalent to the random rocket-bombings of 1984, where it would be more expensive to fight the Party to have them stop than accepting it's just the cost of doing business[2].[1] Which can either simply be a power thing (these people generally don't have daughters, so that's OK), or they're so morality-porn-brained that they think it's good that the migrants are permitted this kind of salary.
[2] Orwell thinks it's important enough to say they haven't realized, but would it even matter day-to-day if they did? Just as the average Afghani thinks, there is no Britain for them. There is simply 'where can food/water be obtained from, where the lodging is'.
Nationalism is not natural.
I get your hyperbole but peacetime is conventionally understood as "not in active military conflict".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Japanese comfort women were in areas that Japan had achieved occupation and not as part of a battle followed by mass rape. Japan had legal control at the time over places like Korea. They had administrative control and apparently ratified things like The Hague Convention but still set up mass rape facilities.
And I thinking hiding behind well slavery was legal before 1865 so rape of Africans doesn’t count is weak. US effectively allowed mass rape of other humans as part of slavery.
I think my main point is that the West or the semi-civilized Japan have allowed rape on different tribes under certain conditions. And Asylum seekers raping lower class Britains is a strong sign they don’t view Britains as their tribe. I may be wrong but I don’t think Pakistanis regularly rape Pakistanis but have systems to mitigate that.
I'm not disputing that certain forms of rape were legal in western countries until very recently. Rape is punishable by death in Pakistan, but they have a hard time in actually enforcing the law. I did not get your point before, yes there is a thing as "revenge rape" but I'm unsure about the tribal element. Some 82% of rapists in Pakistan are fathers or brothers of the victim, which don't get reported. It's likely true they don't view Britons as their tribe, but I think they target white girls simply because white people are the UK's majority.
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
I'm somehow getting the feeling you are referring to something very specific, and not "you could just drag a random European chick into the bushes, and have your way with her, and it was perfectly legal all the way up to 1865".
1865 was the Thirteenth Amendment. So long as slavery was legal, it was legal to rape slaves.
Is that actually true? The premise does not necessarily imply the conclusion. For example even today, animal ownership is legal, but it is not legal to rape (or torture) animals.
I'll note that I'm not the OP, and also that I didn't mean that slavery being legal entailed that raping slaves must have been legal, I was merely making explicit Opt-out's apparent factual claim that this was so with American slavery pre-1865.
Quickly looking into it, the situation does seem to have been more complex, and unsurprisingly varied from state to state. When it comes to white masters raping their black slaves, no state seems to have been so crass as to explicitly allow it in law, even if it was a widespread practice. That being said, I did find this 1850s Mississippi Supreme Court case which explicitly ruled that "the crime of rape does not exist in this state between African slaves" as "their sexual intercourse is left to be regulated by their owners". This seems to decriminalize master-on-slave rape only by implication, but it does at the very least explicitly legalize slave-on-slave rape, so it was sometimes legal to rape slaves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought you meant "the west" in general, or on average, not "in one of the western countries".
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