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 -
The pimp is contract enforcement in a transaction that is usually illegal so normal means can't be used.
Damage the goods or refuse to pay and the pimp steps in.
The author is making the mistake of assuming that without enforcement the transaction just happens 100% perfectly. And so the pimp is a parasite. Now 9 times out of 10 the very presence of the pimp is enough to enforce compliance, so it can look like they aren't doing anything but those positions exist for a reason. If you know an inspector might check your goods, then you are incentivized to not try and slip in shoddy merchandise.
In other words a pimp is just an unofficial judge, jury and leg breaker. And that explains why the official versions exist too, because transactions require oversight. Every society on earth creates these positions for a reason. They are crucially important to building the high trust you talk of. Someone has to enforce "good" behaviour, so that the transaction can be trusted to take place. So we mandate goods inspections, certificates of compliance, paperwork logs etc.
So its not that governments become lenocracies, its that pimps are a shadow of government. Just like gang enforcers are, they commit illegal acts yes, but in the service of maintaining a structure.
Pimping might be what contract resolution looks like in a libertarian world. The private contractor pays someone to enforce the contract if the client does not pay etc. Probably with less leg breaking, canes and hats though.
I assume the "parasite" sentiment comes from the fact that pimps don't always allow their services to be refused. Do you think it'd be a good libertarian world if enforcers showed up uninvited at your office and let you know that either you hire them for the price they set, or something might happen?
Well I am not a libertarian, but whether some pimps do that, doesn't invalidate pimping as being valuable. Anymore than the fact some cops being corrupt invalidates law enforcement entirely.
Why do you think is it called "pimping her out" as opposed to "pimping for her" or something?
Because they are basically management in this scenario. I work for my boss, but that doesn't indicate my boss doesn't bring value. Now there are plenty of bad managers who do not bring value and do exploit their workers, but that doesn't mean that management in and of itself does not bring value when it comes to organizing workers efficiently. Given sex work is generally illegal it seems likely that many pimps do indeed lean towards the exploiting end but that doesn't mean the concept of pimping is invalidated.
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