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 -
Well yeah, this is why certain religious texts have "if it took place in an area where people could hear her resisting" as a pre-condition for prosecuting rape. Feminists hate that because it's fair to men (while at the same time intentionally ignoring the fact that, if the act doesn't take place in a place where anyone could reasonably hear, it's treated as having been resisted by default).
It's probably worth remembering that the people who came up with that in the first place were autistic/academic types (the same people who were advocating child sex 10 years prior, but that detail seems to have been conveniently forgotten). If you asked EA to be in charge of sexual morality, this is what they would do, because (as autists) they have no other workable protection from bad actors.
It doesn't escape my notice that the 'consent' framework (as originally designed, not the modern perversion) is the kind of thing a sufficiently-intelligent little kid would design (or a classical liberal, but I repeat myself). In fact, said demographic tends to approach sex this way; why would they do otherwise, considering that 'mating dance' is not the information-gathering approach they're trained on and sexual activity at that point is more opportunistic fact-finding than adult pair bonding (because the subsystem for that isn't ready yet).
Consent's meant for a type of fact-finding that happens to carry certain novel risks (that's kind of why it's the legal standard for every other activity of this nature), while normal sex uniquely runs on pair-bonding- feminists are correct that the act of sex in truth extends to the way the 'mating dance' is conducted right up to the request to initiate it (their conclusions being entirely selfish doesn't diminish that). The fact that the former framework is easily hijacked such that "unaware of certain risks" could be set up to exclude women entirely was probably not considered in the analysis.
95% of the problems could be fixed by returning this sort of 'consent violation' to being the civil matter that it is (theft should probably be treated that way too, though it already is in practice- but this is unambiguously a privilege fight since men treat petty consent violation as seriously as women treat petty theft, so punishing one yet exempting the other is what you'd expect when one or the other gender is privileged).
More options
Context Copy link