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 -
It's not counter-intuitive at all. The idea is that these men are so perverted and deviant that they can't control their sexuality and want the government to do it for them. That's why these guys are so obsessed with porn in the clip and are demanding that others control their sexuality. Because they can't. And if they can't control their sexuality in private, well...
There's also the implication that the men are trying to act out some kind of kink of sexual control on women, with the eggs thing. It's a reverse-uno-card version of "it's just a fetish." The idea is that the men aren't acting out their sexuality 'naturally' (according to the definitions of the sex-positive American left) and so are sublimating their sexuality into weird BDSM kinks about controlling women's sexuality, and then sublimating that into policy positions on condoms and porn. It's the same attack line as "pro-life men are against abortion because they want to control women's bodies," the actual reality that a large chunk of activist pro-lifers are women notwithstanding the 'truthiness.'
It's ludicrous -- at least as a description of the majority of the sexually-conservative right, which mostly just has sex with their wives and care dutifully for the children who result. But if you believe the things the left does about the right, it makes sense.
I can kind of see the logic up until the point of porn, where still falls apart because the neckbeard men portrayed in the ad are the most stereotypical, prototypical consumer of porn. They're exactly the kind of men portrayed or people imagine as going into adult video stores in the 80s. Even if all the other points were true, in no way could you convince me that those men are the kind of men who want to ban porn, which the ad implies.
But I suppose they just have paper over that because as makers of the ad are 'sex-positive' as you say (which includes porn) that just have to pretend like these guys wouldn't be consuming porn.
No, the idea is they are consuming porn (because the sex-positive left doesn't believe anyone can abstain from porn) but are hypocritically talking about how porn needs to be banned because they can't control their urge to use porn. That they're the stereotypical consumers of porn is precisely the point -- the idea is that the only people who want porn to be banned are hypocritical, insane deviants who want daddy government to control their sexuality because they can't. It's the "Republicans are the real perverts" attack.
It's an... damnit I feel bad using the work 'weird' now, lets go with 'unusual'... idea, I agree. It inverts things that ought not be inverted, and uses right-wing attacks against the right. But again, it works with the sex-positive left's view that everyone is a beautiful sexual butterfly and if you keep your sexuality bottled up it explodes in an orgiastic frenzy of uncontrolled sexuality, like a pressure vessel that has not been allowed to vent gas. Gentlemen watch porn in private, like a normal person, and so don't need it to be banned. They certainly aren't talking about it in public, even to say it should be banned. "It's, like, weird bro that you're so obsessed with porn, sure you're not using it?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link