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 -
That last link on Maryland's laws is confusing me. In particular, section (c) is almost redundant. It's basically trying to say "parents with photos of their kids who happen to be nude aren't in violation unless it's like actually porn" to prevent overapplication of the law where it's not intended, so that when your four year old goes streaking across an otherwise wholesome family video you don't go to jail as a sex offender.
But the specific wording in section (c) is different from the wording in section (a), which draws attention to the differences. In section (a), it says you can't have media where the minor is
(1) engaged as a subject of sadomasochistic abuse; (2) engaged in sexual conduct; or (3) in a state of sexual excitement.
In section (c) it says parents may not have media of their own children where the minor is engaged
(1) as a subject of sadomasochistic abuse; or (2) in sexual conduct and in a state of sexual excitement.
Which means that parents specifically ARE allowed to have content where their child is engaged in sexual conduct XOR in a state of sexual excitement, as long as it's not both simultaneously???
Is this reading correct? Maybe they're trying to ward off the case where a two year old is having their diaper changed and pops a boner randomly? I'm not sure why you'd be filming that in the first place, but I suppose it makes sense not to prosecute it on the same level as actual CP.
However this opens a logical loophole where it appears that the law as written would allow pornographic videos involving your own children (with unambiguously sexual conduct), as long as it's not sadomasochistic in nature, and the child themself is not sexually excited by it (so them pleasuring an adult would be fine), since such an act wouldn't meet the criteria for c1 or c2. What am I missing here?
More options
Context Copy link