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 -
Sure. What is fundamentally predatory about adult-child or adult-teenager sex which couldn't be negated if neither party is sexually interested in the other?
I hope that I'm not badly misunderstanding you... you're saying it would more acceptable to have sex with a kid, if neither party is interested?
The idea of having sex with someone I'm not interested in at all sounds vaguely traumatic, as an adult. For a kid, it sounds like it would completely mess up their view of sex and relationships generally.
Also we've had people here argue that most child molesters aren't pedos, I'm not sure I buy the argument, but if it's true, wouldn't the majority of child molestation be non-predatory in your book?
It might be. I haven't fully thought through the ramifications, so I won't endorse the position. But it seems to me as if a major part of the anti-progressive rejection of child sexual liberation is that only pedos want to fuck kids, so if you make a socially accepted position in which that can happen, then pedos will naturally accumulate in that position.
To address the issue of trauma, I think adults can and often do engage in all kids of work/actions which they don't actually like doing. As for the "kid" part, I think it's best we drop that, because at the very least, the American education system by and large teaches these things when you are in middle school, which I don't think is a population considered "kids".
So, if we knew that neither the teenager nor the adult had any interest in sex with each other, but were engaging in it so that the teenager learned how it worked or felt in practice, what is the objection?
I don't see why they'd be non-predatory. A hunter might not care about the animals he kills and might even despise the meat they produce, I'd still say it's valid to call him a predator.
More options
Context Copy link
It's a thought experiment. We're trying to figure out how something works, why it's like that, so we ask - how does fire work? Would fire burn without air? This doesn't mean we want to burn everyone.
Right, and I'm going along with it. I'm trying to point out that the setup he's proposing would still involve someone getting burned. Either what he's setting up is an "electric fire", or while he's cutting off ~80% of the content of air, the part that he left happens to be pure oxygen, or there's something else he's missing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link