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 -
Okay, so /u/Fruck kissing his comatose father on the forehead was "bad" even though it wasn't sexual harassment?
Correct, although I think it is bad in a pretty minor way.
How?
I think nonconsensually touching people is bad simpliciter. Sometimes there are good reasons to do it that outweigh the harm of doing so (carrying someone unconscious to safety from a fire or something) but generally I think it is bad.
I'm just baffled by the theory of harm here. Do you really think that if /u/Fruck's father came out of his coma and found out that his son had kissed him on the forehead during his coma, he'd be outraged and feel that his son had violated his personal boundaries? I find that essentially impossible to believe. Crimes do actually require a victim you know.
"Outraged" is a strong word. I would expect him to be somewhat uncomfortable with his child's touching his unconscious body, but I would also expect him to consider this violation of personal boundaries to be extremely minor and easily forgiven, given the obvious depths of the child's love and grief from which it sprang.
Really? Are /u/Fruck and I the only people in this thread who think that this is a totally normal (even commendable) way to behave, and that the father would not have been even slightly bothered by this?
You are not alone but I don't have the slightest desire to engage.
More options
Context Copy link
I come from a culture that is very much against physical contact compared to the average Westerener, and I don't think most people back home would see anything wrong with kissing your comatose father's forehead. I certainly don't If anything that's seen as a good thing as it shows filial piety.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No I do not think that, which is why I think the harm or badness in this case is small. I agree that thinking about how the person subject to the nonconsensual touching would feel about that touching is important in evaluating its morality.
But you think a nonzero amount of "harm" has been committed by a man tenderly kissing his comatose father as he lies in a hospital bed. You think the world would have been a better place had /u/Fruck not done that.
I find this worldview almost impossible to fathom. A man wakes up, showers and gets dressed. Just before he leaves for work, he kisses his sleeping wife (who he adores) on the lips. You think some small but nonzero amount of "harm" has been committed here.
Later that day, the same man comes home from work. His wife greets him at the door, and kisses him - quelle horreur! - without asking for consent first! She should have said "Dearest husband to whom I've been married for a decade, may I please kiss you?"
God, what a bizarre standard of behaviour. You realise that literally everyone you've met in your life has violated this ridiculous rule you've set up at some point in their life (including you, most probably)? If you're too scared to kiss your girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse on the lips while they're asleep - well, I shudder to think of how cold and lacking in intimacy your "ideal" romantic relationship is.
As I noted in another comment I don't think consent needs to be specifically verbal. The social context it's occurring in is important.
Yea, so? Just because I have harmed people a particular way, or that other people have commonly harmed myself or other people a particular way, doesn't mean it isn't harmful! People, myself included, aren't morally perfect and the only way we can pretend we are is blinding ourselves to the way our actions harm others.
So why is a head-tilt on a first date ironclad evidence of implied consent, but not the lifelong bond between a man and his loving son who he raised from infancy?
I just refuse to believe that the wife of the man who kissed her before she went to work actually believes she has been "harmed" in any way. And I don't think this is because she really has been harmed, but has been brainwashed by society or the patriarchy or whatever to believe that she hasn't - I believe that, in the act of a loving husband kissing his sleeping wife (who adores him) before he goes to work, no harm has been done. It's a victimless "crime" i.e. not a crime at all.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link