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 -
Dolly Parton might sadly be gone, but her legacy as one of America's greatest continues to live on in many ways. Today being a victory for free speech, with Texas Senate Bill 12, the "drag show ban" being ruled unconstitutional by Reagan appointee judge David Hittner for the pretty obvious reason that it violated the first amendment.
Dolly Parton's legacy is intertwined in this ruling in a few ways.
She is cited by Hittner as one example of ‘erotic’ elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” citing Dolly Parton specifically with "“as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure”.
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Brigitte Bandit is a drag queen known for doing Dolly Parton impressions.
Parton herself had given Bandit a guitar covered in rhinestones after Bandit had testified at the Texas capitol against the drag ban.
It is important to note that the drag ban was on its face, "neutral" and didn't mention drag at all. The phrasing used was "sexually oriented performances", as Texas had tried to get around any textual blatant viewpoint discrimination. But expanding it to cover typical drag shows as stated for the intent required such vague wording that it could also possibly impact things exactly like Dolly Parton. If a impersonation of Dolly Parton by a man is too sexual, than Dolly Parton is too sexual.
Some other examples Hittner used included Miley Cyrus twerking, Lady Gaga, some more revealing cosplays, and swimmers in attractive bikinis. And even before the law was put into action, apparently The Texas House Research Organization had specifically listed cheerleading alongside concerts and theatrical performances as potential threats. It's so broad and the problems so well known ahead of time that it's possible this law was intended to fail to begin with, that it was red meat for censor loving voters.
Regardless of intent, there's one interesting takeaway from this then. If the state has to textually prohibit a large berth of standard constitutionally protected mainstream entertainment in order to target and censor drag shows, then the problem exists entirely within the attempted censoring of drag shows. If any drag show had a unique and non protected issue, that particular issue can be dealt with specific and focused laws.
Hittner also includes an answer for those who don't wish for them or their kids to see a drag show. Don't go. If you find something offensive, instead of using big government to censor it just don't show up and watch it. You have every right to boycott whatever you please.
It's not obvious that this actually violates the cut up 1st amendment as it stands. For example, a Texas federal jury put Thomas Allen Arthur in prison for 40 years merely for obscene speech. Obviously you can either jail people because they hurt your feelings or you can't. Americans have chosen the former option. There is no firm reason to draw the line at gay pedophile and not just gay.
See my response to Thomas Arthur here.
To the extent this is a response, I think it supports the argument in favor of drag show bans. They are obviously bad, like child obscenity is obviously bad. Arguments that they are artistic are ridiculous and not credible.
I would appreciate specific elaboration on what you think are the specific differences. And please avoid trying to provide lots of examples or lots of various theories. Just the strongest theory and the strongest example would do well for me.
Depictions of child murder and the machinery associated with those acts is an overwhelmingly popular, billion-dollar franchise.
Particularly among its target demographic: children.
(Christian author, too. He wrote it at what was going to be the end of his career in game development. Perhaps God has blessed him.)
The thing about the great debate about why violence in media is different from sex, etc. is that at its root, it's a claim that "obscenity" is just smuggling an isolated demand for rigor around sex. I wrote about the reasons why that happens yesterday, and the argument that you're probably going to make about "but if you normalize it, it'll inspire people to violate children/woman Bs" will be answered by:
So what, we just don't get to discuss the ways in which children actually act because it makes (You) butthurt about the fact it happens in the first place? Did you grow up unusually sheltered? Did you close your eyes and ears when your elementary school teacher told you not to look up sex.com on the computers, know a friend who changed someone's background to porn images, or fail to notice that list of "sites you'd better not go to in the computer lab" was just a list of where the good stuff was? Did you fail to notice how every 9 year old knows what a lesbian is? Were you not cut into the middle school plans to smuggle some booze in and fuck on the camping trip (or did you just ignore it when they got caught)? Did your parents not tell you they took up smoking in middle school? Have you ever shown her yours, and did she show you hers? Did your parents assume you were masturbating far before you even knew what that was?
I mean, obviously the answer to all those questions is no- far be it from me to accuse someone of tactically forgetting things just to win an argument, and I'm not sure which is worse, a bad memory or a boring life. (Perhaps a bad memory is an evolved response to the existential horror of a boring life.) But when I remember that all of those things did actually happen, I notice that if I wished to accurately write about characters of that age, I'm cut out of a significant portion of human experience and motivation.
Which is why the courts- at least, in countries and laws laid down in times where woman A's power was at its weakest... like the US in the '70s- are so concerned with narrowly defining "obscenity" in the first place. I'm sure you've watched Stranger Things (S1), and perhaps Adolescence (at least the first episode) as well, and noticed the scenes that features a child character pissing themselves. That's its own tag on PornHub (and others), so obviously it's obscene, on its face (or rather, in its pants or shorts; not all of us are that flexible)- it's sexual domination of the forced-to-piss.
But the case in Stranger Things is not obscene, and the argument (or perhaps "compromise" is a better word here) for why is that the sexual humiliation of that boy wasn't the ultimate goal of the work. By contrast, in Adolescence, the sexual humiliation of the boy is very obviously the ultimate purpose of the work, so it is obscene. (And of course you had government officials worldwide promoting it for that reason. But this is the Epstein class we're talking about, so Kier Starmer advocating this child porn be shown in schools ain't exactly a shocker.)
Not to say the authors aren't getting off on kids pissing themselves; the author of Made in Abyss is... uh, not exactly a closeted pedophile. (Though, you could argue those instances specifically- though not necessarily others- are less harmful, for there's not really an exploitative sexual dynamic between characters there... even though other scenes in the work are a lot more explicit. That's probably closer to how a kid would assess it, actually; the entire conceit of the show is, beyond exceptional visual quality, about how a kid in that situation would assess stuff. Which is why it can't exist without the other sexual parts or in any other form. Stephen King's It has a similar thing going on with its depiction of child sex, as I understand it.)
Yet the argument there is the presumption of mind-reading. Take that picture of that little Gook girl running away from her village, terrified, in a state of napalm-induced undress. Now, I get that not many people have fetishes for Uncle Sam's massive dick dropping hot sticky loads all over Asian girls, but I definitely believe someone has found sexual pleasure in that photo.
So is it "obscenity" or not? To what extent was it necessary to create that to prove the point, and to what degree even can you claim to judge that? It's clearly sexually charged and sexually exploitative (it's relevant that it's a little girl, and it's relevant that she's exposed that way)- if it was a decrepit old man the response would be very different. It threatens the power of women if it is not; it binds your ability to know what the cost of "the nation's best interests" are if it is.
So I assert the only feasible answer- from a law that binds society itself to protect it from its most selfish impulses- is "none of it is", as a basic anti-corruption/anti-oligopoly measure from an interest group that half the population will someday belong to.
Which is exactly the kind of thing 1A (and its weaker imitations worldwide) exists to guard against!
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