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 -
I wasn't characterizing your view, but what follows from your argument if it is valid. It seems to me that the argument you put forward to support your view is an equally strong argument for a view you oppose.
As a matter of fact, I think that normalizing premarital sex is a grave social problem. As far as I know, no society has ever embraced the following three norms simultaneously and survived: (1) sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable, (2) homosexuality is morally acceptable, (3) male and female sex roles ought to be respected equally. For example, the Romans accepted (1) and (2) but not (3). I advocate for (2) and (3) but not (1). I think the basic reason (1), (2), and (3) are not compatible is that young men would become addicted to having sex with each other and, not necessarily lose interest in women, but not be very motivated to navigate the challenges of obtaining and sustaining opposite-sex relationships. Sound familiar?
Our own society is moving toward accepting (1), (2) and (3) together, but this is a recent development, and at the same time our society is dying before our eyes, so I do not count the current, unstable situation as a data point because it is a dramatic departure from our recent history as a culture. To give you an idea how fast these norms are changing, leading Democrats (e.g. both Clintons, Biden, Obama) opposed gay marriage until around 2012 -- and in the early 1960's, 86% of married women said when polled that it was not OK for a woman to have sex with her fiancé before marriage [Charles Murray (2012): Coming Apart, p. 154].
I doubt that a society can survive that accepts (1), (2), and (3) -- though if one has ever existed it would prove me wrong (maybe someone knows an example?). So that experiment hasn't been run with success to my knowledge. On the other hand, the experiment of socially accepting child sex has been run many times (in modern Afghanistan, ancient Rome, the Sambia tribe, et. al.) and those societies continued to exist for generations. I'm definitely not advocating that, but I am saying the empirical evidence for the maladaptivity of (1), (2), and (3) is stronger.
In light of that, what argument would you make against prohibiting (1), (2), and (3) in media depictions, that does not contradict your original argument on CSAM?
That is itself a very good sign you have misunderstood what I intended to convey as my argument and belief.
That might on me, I might not have communicated it well.
I do not particularly share that belief. I don't think premarital sex is totally without issue, but I think it's not inherently bad, the issues with it are serious but not civilization ending. And moreover, it's anyway way past anything that's remotely likely to change.
Yeah, but no society has ever had the semiconductor and ubiquitous satellite before either. Or streaming TV or easy international travel. An argument from precedent is not terribly meaningful in a society that's consistently creating totally novel things (some of which are generally good, some of which are generally bad and some of which are mixed).
I don't even remotely agree that this is a valid way to reason about society. It's a form of just-so reasoning that can be concocted post-hoc to support or oppose any position.
[ I'm also not even sure that "maladaptivity" is even the right measure. There are a lot of things that are maladaptive that we nevertheless believe are morally proper or even morally obligatory. Similarly there are many things that are adaptive that we believe are morally wrong or even forbidden. Given the enormous productive surplus of modern industry, humanity has the freedom not to be fitness-maxing at full tilt all the time in a way that previous societies or other species do not. ]
You can try to make this into a more complicated argument if you want. I feel no need to go any further than
As I reported before, a supermajority of married women disapproved of premarital sex in the 1960's. Moreover a supermajority of adults in the US (75% of those who expressed an opinion) believed premarital sex was wrong as late as 1969 [source]. By your argument, that I quoted above, slavery was moral until 300 years ago; premarital sex was wrong until 60 years ago, and gay marriage was wrong until 10 years ago. I assume you believe, however, that the abolition of slavery (e.g.), which changed the supermajority consensus, was a good thing. If so, then there must be some consideration aside from the majority opinion that informs morality. My question is, in your view, what is it, and how does it apply to CSAM in a way that it does not apply to, say, the normalization of premarital sex in media?
The difference is, I don't believe we are ever again going to see a world where premarital sex as taboo as sex with a 5 year old.
If you want to agitate for it, go for it.
This is a fairly common, silly argument.
To clarify, I (a person living in 2024) believe slavery is wrong whether it happened in 1800 or 2000. Some other entity (perhaps, as you suggest, a person living in 1800) did not believe slavery was wrong. That person is not me and I am not them.
The argument you are calling silly is your previously stated argument on the topic of CSAM (supermajority, etc. etc.).
What I asked for is your argument that the abolition of slavery was a moral improvement. I'm now asking for the second time. Whatever argument that is, it will have to prove that majorities don't decide morality, which will contradict your argument for the prohibition CSAM.
What's silly is the idea that my judgment today of has to be based on what people thought in a different century.
The same reason -- it's a near universal truth.
They do. And the majority now has decided that slavery was pretty awful.
The fact that majorities in the past thought otherwise doesn't itself (without more) mean anything to my judgment today.
This is a strange hill to want to fight for.
Let me see if I understand correctly. Do you affirm the following?
If so, why is that true but not this:
For example, is it because 2023 comes after 1700? Or because we are having the conversation in 2023? Or for some other reason?
Yes, A because I live in 2024.
Consider also:
C — Fire is the product of combustion of materials with oxygen in both 1700 and 2024. I know this because there is a near universal consensus on the matter in 2024.
D — Fire is due to the liberation of phlogiston. People in 1700 know this because there is a near universal consensus on the matter in 1700.
Do you believe in the symmetry of C/D? Or do you believe 300 years ago fire really was phlogiston?
Maybe in the future people will have a different view on fire or whatever else. That’s unknown-able to us. They are welcome to it. And anyone can got and promote that view and, if it takes hold, good for them!
I believe that combustion consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston. I assume you do too. The next question is why this is true. Do you believe that this is true because (1) a majority of people in 2023 believe it is true, or because (2) regardless of what a majority of people believe, combustion actually consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston?
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
Can you give us some examples of societies that have failed because they accepted all 3 of these things at the same time?
I don't know of any society has embraced them together.
Well there you have it. Jesus dude, could you construct a more convoluted argument? Literally throwing darts at a non-existent enemy.
The conjunction of (1), (2), and (3) is not a straw man; it is exactly where Western civilization is headed. Yet it is uncharted ground. My thesis is that that ought to give us pause that no society has ever tried this combination and survived long enough to record the fact.
You think there are a lot of lost tribes out there that tried all 3 and never invented writing or something? This whole theory is puzzling. No one had gunpowder, phones, and crocs at the same time either.
In real life these values are on a continuum. My hypothesis (not thesis) is that the closer a society gets to accepting all three at once, the weaker it gets. It's not that they failed to invent writing; it's that they got conquered and absorbed, and their culture was taken out of the meme pool.
I don't know what you mean by "crock". The question here, though, is what is in need of an explanation. It's obvious why no previous society ever had the internet and remote control drones at the same time. It is not obvious why no society ever had (1) sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable, (2) homosexuality is morally acceptable, and (3) male and female sex roles ought to be respected equally. I would expect that if the combination were not toxic, a society would have embraced them. Many societies embraced (1) and (2), and I submit every society ought to embrace (3); so, an explanation is required as to why it never happened.
It didn't happen for the same reason the internet and drones never existed before. We didn't have the technology to enable it. Technology obviates previous needs and hierarchies. It used to be very important to be strong, not so much anymore, you used to need 7 kids to ensure your old age care, and that enough made it through to adulthood, not anymore.
There simply isn't the need to conform to those previous norms to survive and thrive. The state also takes care of a lot due to abundance of resources brought on by technological progress, hence all the single mothers etc...It isn't that they tried all three and disappeared without a trace (as you say you have zero proof of one succeeding or failing), it is that they couldn't have existed with the technology of the time.
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