site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25917 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 8, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's weird to see those mods all listed together. If I'm reading them right some are nude mods for Hogwarts legacy, and since the characters in that game are generally in highschool, that makes the mods CP. They are listed alongside mods for other games that basically just swap out pride flags. One thing is not like the other.

One thing (removing pride flags) is similar to the other (removing digital representations of clothes) in that they are both 100% harmless. Producing child porn is bad on the basis that in order to produce child porn, you must commit crimes against some child. Characters in video games are not sapient, and nothing done to them can constitute an immoral act or even have a moral dimension.

People's response to CP generally makes significantly more sense if you model it as a disgust reaction to the people who'd consume it rather than any true concern for children's wellbeing. The fact that no children were harmed (EDIT:) in this case doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that some creep is actually finding some enjoyment in life.

Attraction to children is not as strong a predictor of child abuse as other predictors that we don't respond this way to, so I don't find that to be a very convincing argument. This is nothing but dumping on low-status men.

If all you know about a man is that he is attracted to children, it's difficult to quantify his risk of offending.

The response doesn't change even if people know you well. Once they find out you are attracted to kids, it doesn't matter if they've known you to act with integrity for decades. Everything you've ever done is suddenly viewed as an act to lull people into a false sense of security so you can "offend". If you acted "normally" (ie, the way other adults did) around kids, you must have been secretly getting off on it and therefore can't be trusted. If you avoided kids, you must not have been able to control yourself and therefore can't be trusted. People will literally trust known child abusers over you. Being attracted to a kid but never "offending" while trying to be a good if distant person in their life when it happens to intersect your own is apparently more trauma-inducing than repeated physical and emotional abuse. Ask me how I know...

However, we do know that attraction to children is the single strongest predictor of recidivism in known offenders. This is at least suggestive that it matters for first-time offenders as well.

It's the strongest predictor among people who have already offended. This introduces severe selection bias.

What "other predictors" do you mean, and are they as directly causally linked and unambiguous as CP? Or are they vague, all-purpose risk factors, like "lifestyle instability"?

I believe single parents hooking up with new partners is far more directly linked to child abuse than virtual CP consumption. I'll also challenge that there is a direct and unambiguous causal link between virtual CP and child abuse. I'd assert the motivation to consume it is more complicated than you are making it out to be. Consider Lolicon: The Reality of 'Virtual Child Pornography' in Japan (IMAGE & NARRATIVE (MAR 2011), Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 83 – 119, full paper contains NSFW imagery). Toward the end is this section:

Likewise, engaging lolicon images, even when they are pornographic in function or effect, is no simple matter. According to Akagi Akira, in the 1980s, the meaning of lolicon among fans shifted away from older men having sex with younger girls (Akagi 1993: 230). The desire for two-dimensional images was not for girls per se, but rather "girl-ness" (shōjo sei), symbolized by "cuteness" (kawairashisa)(Akagi 1993: 230). The young age and small size of characters were intended to amplify cuteness. Akagi proposes that substitution and mimicry in lolicon function to transform straight sex into parodic forms (Akagi 1993: 230-231). It does not facilitate normal sex, but sexualizes that which is normally not sexual (Shigematsu 1999: 130). Shigematsu adds that the male penis is often absent from lolicon (in compliance with obscenity laws, though not always so in the 1980s), and the replacements for it are objects that do not feel pleasure (Shigematsu 1999: 130). Further, the face of the attacker is often not depicted (Akagi 1993: 232). Akagi sees this as a major distinction from the erotic manga that came before, where there was a sort of "hero attacker" with whom the reader identified. Rather, Akagi provactively suggests that lolicon fans project onto girls: "Lolicon readers do not need a penis for pleasure, but rather they need the ecstasy of the girl. At that time, they identify with the girl, and get caught up in a masochistic pleasure" (Akagi 1993: 232).^30 Itō Gō supports this analysis:

"Readers do not need to emphasize (sic) with the rapist, because they are projecting themselves on the girls who are in horrible situations. It is an abstract desire and does not necessarily connect to real desires. This is something I was told by a lolicon artist, but he said that he is the girl who is raped in his manga. In that he has been raped by society, or by the world. He is in a position of weakness."^31

Recall Kinsella's suggestion that lolicon be understood as men performing the shōjo to come to terms with an unstable gender identity (Kinsella 2006: 81-83). If being a man ceases to promise power, potency and pleasure, it is no longer the privileged subject position. Akagi explains that lolicon is a form of self-expression for those oppressed by the principles of masculine competitive society (Akagi 1993: 232).^32 Lolicon is a rejection of the need to establish oneself as masculine and an identification with the "kindness and love" of the shōjo (Akagi 1993: 233). This interpretation reverses the standard understanding of lolicon as an expression of masculinity to one of femininity. This is, of course, not the only way to approach the wide range of lolicon images, but it certainly highlights the complexity of "pornographic content" and its uses.

(I'm probably going to regret this comment...)

Why are you putting "offending" in scare quotes?

Because what's considered "offending" varies quite wildly and it's not always obvious to me what people mean by it. I've returned a hug from a child I found attractive rather than turning her away. I've gotten aroused by the actions of children around me. Do you consider that "offending"? I don't, but some (many?) people do. Amusingly ChatGPT also does (hello @self_made_human).

Nevertheless, child sex abuse is a real thing, and people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting it with pedophilia.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't give people a blank check in their response to pedophilia and things correlated with it.

Can you explain to me a mechanism by which pedophilia would be a strong predictor of offending again, but not a strong predictor of offending the first time?

Sure. Back when we were on reddit, there was another user who claimed to be a pedophile who theorized that pedophilia is (sometimes?) caused by a disruption in one's sexual development leaving them stuck in a more child-like stage. Hypothetically assuming this is true (I'm not claiming it is, though it does somewhat fit my experience), then it's possible that when and/or how it was disrupted affects how likely a pedophile is to offend, making pedophilia a very strong predictor of offending again, but not necessarily of offending the first time if only a minority of pedophiles are so affected.

I'd be astonished if they weren't. Would you?

I would expect pedophiles to be overrepresented among people who sexually abuse children. I would also expect that a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child however.

You can probably even argue that, in absolute numbers, more children are sexually abused due to Mom's shitbag-but-not-an-obligate-pedophile boyfriend.

Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out to her shitbag boyfriend out of desperation for his attention when she's not abusing them herself between being dumped by and finding a new one. But of course, women can never be blamed for their contributions to child abuse and their abuse can never truly be sexual anyway...

But this feels like a huge whataboutist evasion. If you're asking me to believe that a man who's attracted to kids is no more likely to try to have sex with one than a random man from the dating pool of single parents - well, that doesn't pass the smell test.

Depends on what you mean by more likely to try I guess. I agree a random pedophile is more likely to desire to have sex with one and seek it out given the opportunity, but I think "a random man from the dating pool of single parents" is far more likely to actually have the opportunity and act on it--I don't think the average pedophile has the necessary social skill nor confidence to. I also think the average pedophile is more likely to see a child as a partner they don't want to hurt rather than just a hole to get off in, which I think would temper offending somewhat. Maybe I'm extrapolating too much from my own feelings though.

My assertion is that there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids.

So basically I'm just deceiving myself thinking I actually care more about not hurting the people I'm attracted to than having sex with them?

Is your quoted article asserting

IIRC, the article itself is more a history and survey of other studies and I don't recall it making any assertions itself. These assertions are coming from others being quoted.

that users of virtual CP are relating to the sexualized minor, not to any unseen attacker? So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?

Some users in some instances, yes. More generally, I think the assertion is that some people use virtual CP as a means of dealing with their own [childhood] [sexual] trauma in a safer, more controlled context. For example, consider ボクはお姉ちゃんの妹, a story about an older step-sister who defends her effeminate younger brother from bullying for acting like a girl and treats him like a girl, first with tame cross-dressing and then more erotic cross-dressing and sexual activities, with a recurring emphasis on how much she cares for her brother and how comfortable he is with her behavior. Can you imagine how good it feels to read this for a man who experienced similar things from people who didn't care? When he was forced to participate in feminine activities because his sister was too afraid to do them alone and was subsequently bullied for it. When rather than defending him, his relatives only defended femininity because bullying an effeminate boy is okay so long as girls don't feel like they are being denigrated by it. When he felt helpless as older girls (and boys, though that's not particularly relevant to this story) dressed him up, assaulted, and harassed him, treating him like a doll without any concern for his feelings. And despite all the fear and helplessness he was and still is aroused by it.

No, obviously it's just pedophiles evilly fantasizing about victimizing children until they finally get up the nerve to do it to real children. Because that's what we are. Evil people plotting evil things because we're evil. Any defense we give is just DARVO.

Therefore we shouldn't be concerned about their attraction to children?

Therefore we should be cognizant of the fact that there is more to consider than just their threat to children.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats