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 -
So, in other Aella news, she's channelling the spirit of Hanania with this poll:
Options are (with their current percentages):
Of course Aella with her reach manages to get normies to see her posts and the replies are wild that such a person could even exist, some choice replies:
While the poll itself may be interesting, what I find most interesting of all are the responses from the normies (there are responses that look objectively at the situation and say stuff like "no, if anyone is going to hire prostitutes it should be the parents, not the make a wish foundation", but they all tend to have stuff like "e/acc" in their usernames so they aren't your average randos). These tend to be extremely negative, but not negative in a "I know what I hate and this is it" form but rather a "first encounter with a terrible eldrich abomination you want to see destroyed but are confused at how could it even exist" sort of way. It does not feel like pure hate, but rather a hate that is born of fear, true xenophobia in its original meaning of the word. Nevertheless it is still a form of hate and you can quite easily see the vitriol directed towards Aella, merely for posting this poll.
My worry here though is that as technology advances and a sliver of people with disproportionate cultural cachet adopt belief systems like those of Aella and decouple from the low sophistication ways of thinking common in most westerners along with completely different cultures entering the west and taking root the current indigenous westerners will find their belief and value systems squeezed on both sides, from above by the likes of people who think like Aella does (nothing wrong with how she thinks, in fact I support it) along with from below by the value systems of recent migrants (who still care about stuff like honour and shame etc.).
While this may be a difficult time for the squeezed westereners themselves (I have little sympathy though, these very same people expect migrants to deal with a far bigger and more rapid cultural shock and blame them if they migrants take steps to mitigate this impact), I am more concerned about potential increased societal scale strife as people lash out from being put in a world that they no longer understand (see the "what if you were executed at gitmo" response above, I for one am glad this person has no power and hope it stays this way).
Naturally I have no doubt that any reified violence by the disaffected would be put down with the same prejudice we use for terrorist attacks these days, but it would still not be a good time for social harmony and that has widespread social impacts beyond a small handful of people cracking and going on a rampage where they kill a few people before bring brought down themselves.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at here: "decouple from the low sophistication ways of thinking"? Is it 'smart people should be able to say anything'? Is it 'don't put your normie morals on me'? What?
As to the poll, assuming it's not pure bait, then how about option 5: lil' bastard/bitch (depending on gender presentation) is dying anyway, let somebody rape them. Saves on cost of hiring a hooker, fulfils wish to lose virginity, and makes a paedophile happy without causing lasting trauma to any child that is going to live afterwards.
That decoupled enough for ya?
But honestly, I feel like there is some buried hinting in there about black people or Muslim immigrants or something: by "reified violence by the disaffected" do you mean things like the BLM riots, or are you talking about "normal people who think the brave new world is horrible and want to stand up to it but too bad for you normies" or what the hell? Please speak clearly.
Not that smart people should be able to say anything, but rather smart people will start thinking in a completely different paradigm, which leads to very different answers for what we should do in a scenario compared to using "standard western morals" at the moment. This will lead to a situation where it gets much harder for "normies" to understand the ways of the upper classes, no different from how a CD player can't read a Blu-Ray disc, becuase the formats are completely different and if you tried to force a CD player to read blu-ray the CD player would just parse garbage and be very confused and get angry (if it could think). The point here though is that despire the CD player getting angry it's not the fault of the blu-ray disc, the blu-ray disc is a more advanced, perfectly consistent format and if we're putting blame on anything the blame should go to the CD player, but that won't stop the CD player from getting angry etc.
Bad idea. This makes the child very miserable while they are alive and causes suffering, which is something we don't want (otherwise why care about human welfare at all for anyone, we're all going to die at one point?). There won't be any lasting trauma experienced but there will be suffering at the time of the rape experienced by the child and this is bad. Note that this is empathetically not true in the "hire prostitute for dying child" case, over there the child doesn't suffer any long term trauma (as they are dead, same as the pedo case), but they get a good experience while alive instead of suffering the short term trauma of a rape instead, and that makes all the difference.
This is one way of putting it, although I reall don't think what you call "normal people" (I interpret this as westerners with a western modus operandi) will apply to large portions of socety by the time this happens due to population replacement, and the new migrants (the ones who aren't smart enough to be able to accept the emerging upper end belief systems) already think the current way of western life is degenerate and segregate themselves from the rest of society, what would they care that the dominant belief system with actual power shifts from one form of degeneracy to a slightly different form of degeneracy in their eyes?
If we're going for cold-headed logical thinking about this, why not rape? Child is dying. Child wishes to lose virginity. Done and done. Their suffering or mental state doesn't matter, because there will be no long term effects - they're dying and will soon be off the scene. The rapist, meanwhile, gets a victim that will not suffer lasting harm, and the rapist will enjoy the fulfilment of their desires. The random child victim, whom the rapist might have selected otherwise, will not be harmed and will never undergo a traumatic experience.
There's nothing in the proposed thought experiment that the experience of losing the virginity has to be pleasurable, after all.
(In reality, I think this is a very stupid poll, whether she means to troll Hanania or to seriously ask "so why don't we let 13 year olds have sex if they want?" and if she gets pushback on it, it's no more than she should have expected.)
You do seem to be talking about immigration, and you also seem to be wanting to eat your cake and have it: ha ha dumb liberal Westerners, you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on! But also my own country is so horrible I want to come to your liberal, rich, Western nation in order to make a lot of money and have a good life.
It's against the child's wishes. It's also bad for the rapist and bad for the people enabling it. Sure, if there was a fixed quantity of rapists and each rapist only completed X offenses per year or lifetime...maybe this wouldn't be terrible but why can't it wait 'till our hapless hero or heroine is in a coma?
Yep, the child doesn't want to get raped, the child wants to have sex with someone they are attracted to. The fact the child will die soon after does not change this, what it changes it the level of long term future trauma which gets set to 0 because the child is dead. In the prostitute case the child gets to have sex with someone they are at that moment willing to have sex with, which is not the same in the rape case (since by definition the child does not want to have sex with the rapist).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hm, what about matching the child with a pedophile? Perhaps that's just equivalent to the original prostitute case. But I'm thinking, if we could match the child with someone who would willingly do this for free and even get a positive experience out of it for it in itself, rather than someone who have to be bribed with money, this would be even better. Especially since they would be experiencing something which is normally outside their reach; it's like granting 2 make-a-wish-type wishes in one. Assuming we go through all the same approval/consent steps with the child as we would with a prostitute.
If this person was someone both the child and thier parents was happy with then yes, that's fine. Now the parents may well object to a pedophile (I would if I was in this poisition) and that is fine, you then look for someone else who's agreeable to all parties.
Note that even in the prostitute case, it's not like the child and parents will have whatever HIV addled prostitute is the first one to show up forced upon them, they have full control over which prostitute they decide to select, same here, they should have full control over which person they are going to choose for the sex, and that includes the right to say no to every single person they are not happy with for whatever reason (same as with consent for any sex).
Who else other than someone sexually attracted to minors is going to want to fuck a dying 13 year old who may well be too sick or too weak to participate in the activity as an equal partner, never mind if they are able in the first place to have sex with an adult?
I imagine even whores have standards around what clients they service. And a whore who doesn't mind fucking a 13 year old probably has some paedophilic tendencies in the first place.
Someone who would have sex in spite of feeling neutral, even disgusted, due to a personal conviction. It could be something as simple as "I'm doing this because I want my client to have this experience before they die; my disgust and feelings be damned".
Yep, prostitutes sleep with clients they are not attracted to or disguested by on a daily basis, it's literally their job.
Yeah. There's probably at least a few people here on the Motte who would sleep with a close friend that they were sexually disgusted by...if it was that close friend's dying wish. I'd do it, as long as they knew that I was grossed out and didn't really want to do it, but would do it in the same spirit as working as a septic tank pumper's assistant for a day. A nasty job, but for a good, dying friend who knows what they're getting? Worse things to do.
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
Depends, is the pedophile attractive enough that the kid and parents would say yes? If so, I consider that isomorphic to the initial question.
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