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 -
And In Today's Round of America's Favorite Game: Is There Any Group That Doesn't Eventually Have a Sex Scandal?
A Right Wing hanger-on of Milo and Fuentes, Ali Alexander (nee Akbar) appears to have propositioned 15 year old boys for nudes and sex, using access to his "network" of right wing activists and donors as a lure to get budding right wing boys to fuck him. Thoughts on Sammy Diddles Jr.'s little sex scandal:
-- Ali appears to be a victim of the demand for extremists outpacing the supply, with left wing outlets hyping him as a major figure, while I've never heard of him before. I'm not that into the online DR, and he does seem to have had enough friends to hang out with Fuentes and Milo, and to get outed by Milo on his podcast. Milo stated that he chose to out Ali because Ali had used Milo's name as part of his pitch, Ali was telling young (presumably queer?) Republican activists that they could get introductions into Milo's circles if they boned Ali. He is cited as having "founded" Stop the Steal, but I'm not clear on exactly what that means. It's not clear to me that, eg, Donald Trump or Kelly Conway let alone Ron DeSantis had any idea who this guy was. Milo and Fuentes are themselves way overhyped, being fairly comic and unimportant clowns. Predictably, when a political activist gets embroiled in scandal he is always listed by his enemies as the single most important member of their opposition, representative of the entire category. And when one group is under pressure, they tend to target the outliers among their opponents to take off pressure. @HlynkaCG 's theorem that when you get a lot of flak you're over the target, as the Groomer accusation becomes ever more prominent. The problem being that no one has actually ever run the numbers to my satisfaction to show who does it more, and if someone did it would be No True Scotsman'd or "That's just what is reported on"'d into oblivion anyway.
-- Ali Alexander's entire career appears to be further proof that nowhere is Affirmative Action as aggressively practiced as among Right Wing political groups. He was a convicted felon, with no notable academic or business achievements, who somehow became a prominent enough conservative voice during the Obama years to get the attention of activists and donors. Be Black and a conservative, you only have to be about as clever as your average twitter ReplyGuy (let alone your average Mottizen or SSCel) to make it to the Big Time. Clarence Thomas, the Hermanator (RIP king), and Candace Owens are the big dogs; but the tendency runs all the way down to the college Republicans, where every school I ever attended had one Black Conservative who made his whole personality being Black and conservative. It was enough of a gimmick that at 21 it would invariably get him included in every student delegation to meet Newt Gingrich or whichever other red potentate was visiting the school that day, where a conservative white guy would have to win an SGA election or publish a law review note to get that same spot. The sheer rarity of Blacks in conservative circles mean that if conservatives choose to care about representation, they gotta take whoever they can get. The result is that the conservative critique of affirmative action is most true among conservatives themselves: never trust conservative Blacks, they have high odds of being morons or grifters because they need almost no qualifications. Being Black and conservative is the single easiest grift in America.
-- Does any organized group avoid child sex scandals over the long term? I'm a Catholic, and I've been enduring the pedo jokes for most of my life flung against my church. Only to watch as Babtists, non denominational groups, men high in academic and artistic circles, and of course politicians and teachers get consistently caught up in the same scandals. What is the solution to all this? Disapproving of homosexuality doesn't seem to work. Disapproving of all sex doesn't seem to work. The kinds of protections that need to be put in place to keep kids from ever being in positions of risk undermine youth mentorship, they force kids to lean purely on increasingly disjointed and "mixed" family lives when they have no male leadership outside the family. I grew up with older male role models all around me, from Scoutmasters and Priests to coworkers and bosses, in addition to my father. How would I have grown up if I had been isolated from those men by barriers of propriety, and if like so many boys I grew up without a father? How do we raise kids when we must protect them from virtually all men? The only solution that occurs to me is to avoid all organized structures, avoid giving men power, but that seems too pat an answer, an anarchist panacea that works in a smoke filled dorm room.
-- The whole thing strikes me as so sordid, precisely because the boys targeted were so close to being of age. I just can't understand it. Why risk literal federal prison soliciting lewd photos from a 17 year old? It is beyond understanding for me that Ali Alexander couldn't wait a year if he was so very enamored of the boy. This goes in general, I can sort of understand when Pedos or "MAPs" (vomit) say they're attracted to minors in that I can imagine being attracted to things I'm not attracted to, after all lots of people are attracted to things like men or fat women or instagram face that I am not attracted to, I can't understand when they say they can't resist the urge. How is "just don't!" not an effective solution? Maybe I'm speaking from privilege in that I haven't had trouble dating in so long (thanks honey!) that I'm not familiar with the feeling of a dry spell anymore? Maybe we need to work not particularly on why fucking minors is bad, but instead on building willpower. Maybe we just need to work on teaching people to delay gratification and pass the marshmallow test, so that people get "tempted" and just say no. That also seems too pat an answer, willpower seems like it will work on a bodybuilding forum but not in real life.
Desperation is the seed of many shitty relationships. Conservatives are desperate for brown buddies, to prove they're not racist, so there's little incentive for due diligence. Conservatives are just as desperate for activist representatives, and end up with the likes of Marjorie Green (and flamed out with Roy Moore and Herschel Walker...) and other half-hinged deplorables with more fight than sense. For a mirror, look at all the shitbags that liberals embraced in hopes of a fatal blow against their boogeymen: Michael Avenatti (who was considered a presidential possibility for about a week!), Julie Swetnick, Rebekah Jones.... It's just like the propensity to believe obviously fake or exaggerated news because it confirms your priors.
More options
Context Copy link
Because you need to lock in the abnormal sexuality before it likely begins to fade.
This is either an inflammatory claim that should have been backed up with evidence, or a joke that doesn't really belong on this type of discussion board. Less of this please.
More options
Context Copy link
So just to be clear, your theory is that Ali Alexander was some kind of closeted gay evangelist, Johny-Appleseed'ing his way across a number of conservative teenage boys to make sure they all stay gay?
More options
Context Copy link
The vast majority of gay adults don’t have a history of trauma or molestation.
Source.
I’d like to see your evidence that “abnormal sexuality” just fades away on its own, too.
Maybe, maybe not. The twin study data pretty clearly shows genetic influence is minor, ie it doesn’t appear innate and it likely environmentally driven
Also coincidentally, gayness has doubled in the zoomers and millennials while remaining static in older generations
Where are you seeing the latter? I could get it from this site, but it looks like data is thin on the ground. Plus it's self-report. I'd prefer to see prevalence of same-sex partners, or something similar, for more skin in the game.
Gall up
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
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 went through training for this when I worked for the Scouts. If you even had the opportunity to commit abuse, you had already broken most of the rules we learned, which for the most part seemed pretty reasonable to me and I don't think would prevent any mentorship if followed.
No, because as your list of examples indicates, the group itself has basically nothing to do with it, except around some details. I won't pretend to be a mind reader and say why people sexually abuse children, except that, as the saying goes, "power corrupts." (Some) people will do whatever they feel like if they think they'll get away with it. Spend all your free time thinking of a justification to yourself, and you'll find one. Tell yourself enough times "how bad can it be?" and you'll start to believe it. Ideology is irrelevant, just like communist leaders often direct much consumption to themselves.
Also don't forget that caring about power, and about your own position, will always be an advantage over people who are actually selfless when it comes to taking power. Narcissists, sociopaths, and the generally power-hungry are willing and able to lie, to pretend, to work themselves into positions of trust and authority. People are willing to cover for their friends, or to maintain their own power, or for many other reasons. Again, ideology is irrelevant; in some sense, this is just one particular instantiation of "who watches the watchers?" You could also ask why some CEOs steal from their company, or why some politicians take bribes to favor one group over another, or why police abuse their authority and then cover for each other. Has anyone solved this problem?
More options
Context Copy link
The risk of actually catching charges for inappropriate behavior with 16 and 17 year olds may well be extremely low despite the de jure illegality.
More options
Context Copy link
Meh? I get that we pretend that 7 and 17 are equivalent for political/moral purposes, but assuming gays act like straights with respect to favoring youth right at physical maturity, and for straights we already know late teenagers are already in the "most attractive" zone for straight men, this doesn't seem that out of left field (3.6 Roentgen is the highest, er, 18 is the lowest we want the meter to be able to read). He had the power at the time to afford it, so he offered it.
Which is why the solution the liberals proposed was "just devalue sex itself to the point where this activity isn't transgressive enough to bother with/bother attaching personal meaning -> assuming a trauma from". Rates of under-18 sexual abuse are lower in societies that don't have as massive a complex about "muh pedos" so I'm not entirely sure they're wrong.
We tried this already. The women [we replaced the men with] are primarily responsible for pushing "take HRT and chop your dick/breasts off", "we only care about underage relationships when it's male -> female; male -> male relationships like this are stunning and brave", "only bullying by women is permitted", and "all expressions of straight male sexuality are problematic and harmful, yikes, #metoo".
Some think this is an improvement; I disagree.
Make sure that disengaging from an bad [expensive/turned exploitative] relationship is as costless as possible. Rational analysis of all the #metoo cases prove that it takes two (and the more powerful offers benefits at the cost of a sexual relationship: the assertion that these were purely exploitative relationships was a blatant lie).
Remove the ability of that party to offer those benefits (you can't market "I'll give you X in exchange for sex" if you can find 50 other people overnight offering X for less) and that's most of the problem taken care of. You'll still have the occasional Weinstein, but if they had sufficient other options, chose that, and they claim "victimization and trauma" afterwards... well, we gave them other options and they did it anyway so it's not our problem.
More options
Context Copy link
I have juicy gossip that I will irresponsibly share, but fair warning, if you ask for receipts, I have none because everything here is like 10 years old.
Back before I joined med school, I was desperately bored and listless and ended up joining a penpal program on Reddit. I was paired with this waif of a girl, also in India.
When we were talking, she distinctly mentioned being 15 and sending nudes to Milo, yes, that one, and this was long before he was famous. At that point I thought little of it.
Imagine my surprise when he went famous a few years later, on top of his gay persona. Beats me why he ever wanted nudes, though she was boyish enough that I'm sure she might have appealed in a twink-ish way.
Sadly I have no proof, not that I'd be particularly interested in sharing it anyway, it's not like she didn't agree to the whole thing, he was barely even a micro-celeb at that point.
Agreed irresponsible, without receipts it's just libel
I've been around these parts long enough that I have some degree of reputation to uphold, so I expect most people won't jump to the conclusion that I, as a random Indian doctor several thousand kilometers away, have any vested interest in the downfall of Milo.
I really couldn't care less about him, he's a C-list microceleb for the Overly Online, and I'm not going to go digging through decade-old chat records to scrounge up more, especially since I'm only conveying what was told to me by a friend.
As for libel, what's he going to do, sue me?
It is what it is, a second hand account on the internet, and without any proof, libelous, whether or not Milo follows up on it.
It's easily possible that the account was fake. Happens all the time. Did you do forensics on it?
I don't care one iota for Milo, he could easily have done it. I'm just pointing out basic epistemics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I never looked into whether he was gay or not at the time, all she told me was that he was kinda famous, but I didn't look into it beyond remembering that he had a funny name. It was about 2 years later that I heard of him in any other context, make of that what you will.
So I dimly recall a 'huh?' reaction when I heard he was gay.
(So I probably learned about this anywhere from 2014-15, late 13 at the absolute earliest.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Having worked for the Boy Scouts for 3 years and attended more youth protection training sessions than I can count, I consider myself to have at least a fair to middling knowledge of the subject, and it basically boils down to vulnerability. When abusers use the Boy Scouts to target victims, they aren't looking at the popular kid who advances regularly and has a ton of merit badges and serves in leadership positions and enjoys long hikes. No; they're looking for the kid who's unpopular and stuck at Second Class and comes from an unstable family situation and whom both youth and adult leaders tend to roll their eyes at because he's always complaining about something. It's the same dynamic that allowed Jerry Sandusky to run rampant in the Second Mile.
Now zoom out and look at the social ecosystem for minors as compared with 18 year olds. What are the social dynamics of high school versus college or working full time? While I can't speak from personal experience, I can understand how the closed environment and limited independence of high school could cause a sense of alienation that wouldn't be as likely to arise in an environment without the same level of overt social stratification. Any public figure with a young fanbase knows on some level that there are a lot of disaffected kids who look up to them. This might even be more relevant in politics, considering that political figures diagnose societal problems and often propose solutions, rather than simply providing a means of living vicariously.
So you have a 16 year old boys who's having a rough go of it in high school and spends a ton of time online in lieu of actual in-person social contact and becomes convinced that wokism and liberal politics are the cause of his problems, and looks up to Ali Alexander. Then Alexander starts sending him DMs and the kid's now getting direct recognition from someone he greatly admires. And then he follows the routing of a real groomer and starts testing boundaries to see how the kid will react while he still has plausible deniability, before finally making a move. While this playbook is certainly possible with someone who is of age, it's much harder to get a read on their social situation and much less likely that it will be of concern to them.
Seems to me like the test would be ‘what do grooming rates look like for teenagers who aren’t in a conventional high school situation’.
That leaves us with 19 year olds and homeschoolers. The latter are an atypical population in lots of other ways, so what do grooming rates look like among 19 year olds compared to 17 year olds?
Define grooming rates?
I want to say really high, but I’m thinking of a broad range of relationships. College freshmen sleeping with seniors, shift managers screwing the new employee. A whole series of porn tropes that are (hopefully) overrepresented. It’s not that these all have to be exploitative—but I would start from a point of suspicion.
The law sets a clear line for grooming when it comes to children. Step beyond that protection, and angling for sex is more or less legal by default, even in very sketchy situations. At what point would you say that it’s still grooming?
That’s a fair point.
If we pick a major state with an age of consent below 18 and limit it to sexual interactions with adults over 21, we might be able to create a more-or-less reasonable definition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Was it really? I thought from like 1930-1960 pre-marital sex was still frowned upon, and that the feminist movement that would look down on women being taken advantage of sexually started ~1960.
Sex has a very strange history in America. Recall Albion's seed: A large portion of early elites came from cultures where adultery was strongly and seriously discouraged (the Quaker and Puritan ones). A large portion also came from the Borderers and Cavaliers, where (male) adultery was, maybe in theory considered wrong, but in practice actively encouraged, at least for a portion of the population. I think a lot of confusion about how sex is treated in America comes from failing to distinguish between these 2 groups.
(Also keep in mind, the Cavalier practice--where the male elite can take many sexual partners--is probably the most common throughout world history, at least in practice).
I was going to point to the lyrics of "Baby it's cold outside", a song from 1944, which (at least according to one interpretation) acknowledges the strict anti-sex norms of the time while also being a popular song about flouting them. But in trying to find a better description I found this article, which has some additional historical information: https://time.com/5739183/baby-its-cold-outside-consent/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link