site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, like, the worst part about Humbert-Humbert is that he he didn't intend to marry Lolita?

I don't think "feminist notions of consent" have anything to do with protecting minors from their own voluntary decisions. The legal basis is cognitive. 12 year olds can't legally quit school, buy legal drugs, leave home, sign contracts, etc. But this is not because of feminism.

Would you be okay with a 19 year old having sex with an 11 year old? An 8 year old? And so on...Provided they intended to marry?

Its an interesting perspective, but I see some small potential for abuse.

But this is not because of feminism.

No, it is specifically caused by feminism. Compulsory education past the point it makes sense, prohibition (even for adults, too), and AoC laws were day-one feminist goals. A 12 year old could trivially just leave home on the first bus to the city 100 years ago to find work, but 40 years after that it was outlawed (by a significantly more feminist society).

The legal basis is cognitive.

No, it isn't; adults that are stupider than the average teenager (including the mentally handicapped and the senile) have more rights than them, so that claim it's cognitive is incoherent.

I think you're confused about the correct delineation between "child" and "adult", because all of human history suggests it isn't where modern society thinks it is. (And now you know why teenagers [and topically, the occasional 12 year old]- being biological adults under a high degree of suppression- are generally difficult to deal with.)

No, it isn't; adults that are stupider than the average teenager (including the mentally handicapped and the senile) have more rights than them, so that claim it's cognitive is incoherent.

It's cognitive, but imperfectly.

I think you're confused about the correct delineation between "child" and "adult", because all of human history suggests it isn't where modern society thinks it is. (And now you know why teenagers [and topically, the occasional 12 year old]- being biological adults under a high degree of suppression- are generally difficult to deal with.)

Indeed; ancient societies generally considered males to be full adults in their mid to late twenties and women and girls to never really come of age, as opposed to the current standard of eighteen for both sexes.

A 12 year old could trivially just leave home on the first bus to the city 100 years ago to find work

I come from a very patriarchal culture, arguably not truly feminist (though it's made its impact on the educated). No one would put their 12 year old daughter on a bus alone to go find work.

No one would put their 12 year old daughter on a bus alone

Yeah, in some areas of the world even more divorced from reality this can trigger a child endangerment investigation. Gotta be supervised at all times, ideally with a face covering.

Again, you had "left to join the circus" only 4-5 generations ago (for example, the youngest worker on the Hindenburg when it went down was 14- not an unusual thing, and then you look at the workplace photos and see more people even younger than that).

They are capable, we just pretend they aren't because... reasons.

Capable of running away, or capable of getting better outcomes than if they'd followed the guidance of their parents? I'm aware that children were a lot more free-range before, but that did come with expectations that they'd act as they were taught and heeded their elders. In fact, there was far more emphasis on heeding one's elders than there is now, even though, as you note, not all adults are smarter than all teenagers.

capable of getting better outcomes than if they'd followed the guidance of their parents?

You seem to be missing that "if you stay on the farm you'll be poor forever, and you're still not inheriting shit because you weren't born first, so it's time to leave and earn some money to support yourself" was a calculus young men and women commonly had to make even into the middle of the 20th century (in more rural areas).

Modern overextended "adolescence" is a [late-mid]-20th century invention.

Wasn't anything to inherit in most cases. Outside of the US most were tenant farmers: all my distant ancestors certainly were.
My grandfather and his father on the male side were both apprenticed at 12 and moved into their masters' shops. On my mother's side her father started working in the mines around the same age, which was much later than her grandfather had started work (around 9ish)

My dad got to go to trade school until 15, and didn't start a real industrial job (bit grinding) until then.

From what I see, the peak of teenage "difficulty" is 2-3 years before puberty is done with them. Seems clear to me that a 13 year old doesn't instantly become a "biological adult" when she starts bleeding or his balls grow the first few hairs.

No, the worst part was his delusional narcissism that made him think he was a sexy young popstar-lookalike she had a crush on, rather than an aging academic she only flirted with a bit to mog her mom/daddy issues.
That's why her rejection hit him so hard, especially because of who she hooked up with instead

Was Quilty even real? I think there's a reading of the book where Quilty is Humbert Humbert's own alternate ego.

Isn't Humbert on trial for murdering Quilty? Unless you take the unreliable narrator so far that the trial isn't real either.

In any case, Lolita in the end marries some other guy closer to her age (I forgot his name, if it's even mentioned).

Richard. I only remember because jealous Humbert called him something like "superfluous Dick"

Had it a bit wrong:

“No,” I said, “you got it all wrong. I want you to leave your incidental Dick, and this awful hole, and come to live with me, and die with me, and everything with me” (words to that effect).

God I love his parentheses

Wouldn't that mean even the framing story can't be trusted? The editor points out places where Humbert's narrative conflicts in a provable way, and doesn't do that for what he's actually on trial for.