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 -
All horror about sexuality emerges from the initial biological condition [that, if you never have sex, you're objectively worthless] combined with the Just World Hypothesis (or as you phrased it, the notion that there's a "proper amount" of suffering required for sexual fulfillment).
The incest taboo is naturally derived from this: the problem is that a man is getting more sex than he deserves through nepotism. This is also the argument against [heterosexual] child sexual interaction; for M/f, it's "he's taking advantage of a female unable or unwilling to price sex correctly" (both of which are theft- the former from the girl herself, the latter from all women), for F/m, it's "she's giving the only asset she actually has for free/in advance to someone who hasn't/might never earn it". (And m/f is either one or the other on a case-by-case basis.)
This is also why Abramic religion "needs" to set a taboo for male homosexuality, because [despite what its followers will claim] that's not a taboo that comes from biology (including M/m)- because if it's happening, the dom/top earned it. Sure, it's not going to result in babies, just pleasure/sophisticated masturbation, which is why the Catholic church in particular falls back on "natural law" explanations of why it's bad, but it is natural that the dominant partner in the relationship just gets to do this by definition. Besides, the women any man of worth has acquired (as property) sometimes aren't willing or able to submit to sex at any particular time.
But that's inconsistent with the fact that, given the above, you're "cheating" the system- you're getting a facsimile of what you are supposed to dedicate every fiber of your being to getting, and sometimes, you're getting a superior product, for free, to someone else who had to put in a great deal of effort only to score a woman so undesirable she couldn't even give herself away.
And yeah, I'd be real pissed off about people being better than me too in an environment where sex is a scarce resource- horrified, perhaps. This goes double for prostitution, where sex is given an explicit price; men do not want to know how much existential fulfillment costs because their entire instinctual sense of self-worth is built on being able to afford better (and women do the same thing, as their entire instinctual sense of self-worth is built on how high a price they can charge).
Sure it can; I just did it. This is identical to the "irreducible complexity" claim Intelligent Design creationists use- whereas I posit the reason most people do this is because it's been true as a property of all life so long as to simply be instinct (combined with the fact that we're the only rationalizing animal).
Some people are able to identify when their instincts are operating and have open enough personalities to point them out, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone to, much less intentionally reject them, much less back up that decision to reject them. People that do this anyway are "abnormal".
More options
Context Copy link