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 trolling, and trolling designed to validate Democratic views of the nastiness of the other side, further demonstrating that Fuentes is controlled opposition.
That's entirely separate from the fact that the "body autonomy" argument is wholly fake. "Body autonomy" refers abortion and nothing more. Oh, bodily autonomy... so I can take drugs. Marijuana... too easy. Cocaine? Heroin? Testosterone? Penicillin? Oh, that's different is it? OK, then I can choose what medical treatments I have... including vaccination? Including the COVID vax? Ah, different again. Bodily autonomy is a fake argument because in practice nothing else follows from it aside from abortion.
There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.
What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean? As you said yourself, "bodily autonomy" arguments are vapid. Laws are made that govern this type of stuff. It' already 'your body, my choice' and it always has been. Why sanctify the democrat crocodile tears by buying into the idea that 'your body, my choice' is a nasty thing to say? Oh, you can't have unprotected sex and then murder a baby to rid yourself of the consequences of your good time? Boohoo.
Visceral, seething hatred is not license to ignore the rules.
90 days this time.
More options
Context Copy link
Of course not. The nasty thing is agreeing to and promoting their disingenuous framing, as Fuentes did here.
And what framing is that? That the republicans are going to control women's bodies? Isn't that what they are doing?
No more than any government policy controls anyone's body. In fact, the slogan is an extreme red herring on the abortion issue, as it's designed to obscure that another body is involved (the child being murdered).
That's what I've already said.
If that's what you thought was nasty about it that's fine. I don't think that's what other people found nasty about it though. I mean, do you?
It obviously isn't why leftists are offended, but I do think it's why pro-lifers aren't jumping up to defend him. As for the leftists' offense - that's obviously the intent; it's an act of trolling, but more specifically, it's playacting as the cartoon villain that abortionists want. It's the equivalent of "celebrating" a breakthrough against affirmative action by cackling evilly and going "now we can finally keep the black man down forever".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The unborn child isn't "another body" until you can separate them and the mother and have them both live, or otherwise enact your desire of protecting the child without involving the mother's body in it.
The state claiming ownership of the unborn child is worse than communism, because communism at least claims things that are not parts of pther people's bodies.
the state isn't claiming ownership of the unborn when they say you can't kill them anymore than they claim ownership of any random adult when they say other adults can't murder them
and the state already claims ownership of your own body even if there is no two body problem, from laws against suicide to laws against consumption of drugs, etc.
it is only this issue where we carve out the exception; seriously, the privacy right concoction used in Roe v. Wade is unhelpful to individuals in any other context
Yes, the law against suicide is a violation of self-ownership as well. We just let it slide because killing yourself makes even less sense to most in the first place than killing your unborn child, so few are threatened by the law. Also obligatory "what are they gonna do, arrest my corpse?".
Drugs we ban because no one wants to become a degenerated drug addict, yet people do, so we infer that people need help staying away from drugs. Also, the problem of violent junkies.
But at the end of the day it is only a lizardman's constant who is pro-life on basis of "saving human lives" (and can be argued with about what a human life is and how far should we go saving them). The rest, I assume, are using abortion bans as a tool to enforce their preferred monogamy-for-life-for-the-purposes-of-procreation social model. I see no point arguing. I wish women were as gung-ho as right-wing men about buying guns and chanting "no step on snake".
No, we don't let it slide. We punish people who attempt it or stop them in the attempt with the law being the explicit justification and authority to do so. There are many more examples of the state claiming ownership of an individual's body when their behavior only affects themselves. Or do we require motorcycle helmets for the protection of the roadside obstacle the motorcyclist will hit? If you want to argue that actually there is some non-de minimus affect on others in some of these examples therefore they're not claiming ownership of an individual, the same could be said about the overwhelming vast majority of abortions well before you can no longer wave away the two-body problem.
There is no point in arguing this because it's simply true; furthermore, most of those who argue this likely support many of these state declarations of ownership over people's bodies. It is only in this special context which they dream up this right or else it's communism.
I, too, wish women would engage in naked power politics more often.
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
Yes there is. Nasty is as nasty does.
More options
Context Copy link
I have a very hard time believing that you don't understand why this is a nasty thing to say, or why people might interpret it that way. But, taking you at your word, please consider the implications of the phrase in a sexual context.
"Oh, you don't want to have sex? Boohoo"
I'm failing to see the relation. Being unable to have sex without taking responsibility for either contraception or the consequences of unprotected sex are not the same as being forced to have sex.
Sure, and what do you think the implications of the phrase are? In your interpretation, does 'my choice' have a hard limit at exactly the point you think is reasonable to mock (unforced pregnancies) and no further?
If I came up to you and said 'your money, mine now' you would not assume that I meant if you broke a particular clause in a contract that you would be subject to financial penalties. I think the overwhelming interpretation would be 'i control your money in every way'.
Let me ask you this: do you think Fuentes is saying the phrase as a neutral statement of fact, or is he saying it intentionally to rile people up? Maybe that answer goes toward explaining my point. No 'democrat crocodile tears' here.
If a libertarian, taxation is theft, guy just lost the presidential race after running on the slogan 'Your money, is yours' and then somebody tweeted 'your money, mine now', I think the overwhelming interpretation of the tweet would be that it is a joke about taxation being theft.
Right, but all the other implications don't suddenly just disappear. The phrase still means what it means. I believe almost everyone would agree that 'your money is yours' has a vaguely positive connotation absent any context, whereas the reverse is true for the 2nd phrase. It might have additional meaning based on the backstory of the presidential race, but the connotations remain.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the implication of the phrase is: Abortionists made a big deal about this election being about abortion. Their slogan has long been "my body, my choice". They lost. Fuentes makes fun of them by saying "your body, my choice".
Assuming there's more to it, be that a conspiracy by the federal government to make more women vote democrat, or that Fuentes is actually trying to express his belief that he can rape all women, seems rather far fetched and silly compared to the alternative I just gave.
He is obviously saying it to mock and rile people up. Why would that go towards explaining your point?
Why do you insist that every statement has to be 100% serious and taken literally? It can be true simultaneously that he is not expressing a true belief that he has the right to rape all women, but that that is the message he is conveying with this heinous expression.
In fact, you acknowledge that he is saying it to mock people and rile them up. I agree with you. Why do think they're riled?
Do you not think that there is any correlation between saying something explicitly for the purpose of offending people and that thing being a nasty thing to say, especially when you don't believe it literally? I think that goes toward explaining my point quite well.
If you disagree, provide your reasoning about what is a nasty thing to say.
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
Wasn’t Fuentes present during Jan 6? And wasn’t he, unlike so many others even less tangentially involved, not charged or imprisoned? This is why people think he glows. Some arrangement was made.
I am sure he is a federal agent in some deep state conspiracy to... do... something? I don't know where the plot goes from there, hence why I asked: What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean?
Some arrangement was definitely made and ... Then what happens? Like, the FBI need to pay some guy to be a shock jock on twitter? They put CP on his PC and now he has to do as they say which is... Make fun of zionists, women and democrats?
I don't want to sound too dismissive but I don't know what relevance I should place on the notion that someone is a 'fed'. I mean, can I just refer to Ben Shapiro as Mossad and therefor dismiss everything he says when it inconveniences me somehow? I don't understand the purpose of calling Fuentes a fed otherwise.
I can’t say I have any insight into controlled opposition strategy management. But as far as having a deal with the Feds, what other explanation do we have for his light touch treatment after Jan6?
Fuentes made fun of women after Trump won. Fuentes is also a 'fed'. How should I relate these two things together and why?
The provocation is designed to rally more women to the democrats
so an agent of the federal government dropped him an envelope in the park which said "go after women with this joke"?
no, that's not what happens; what happens is Fuentes flies his derp flag and collects people and then he gives the contact information to the feds of all the suckers which are attracted to the flag
it's why this accusation of "controlled opposition" is such a goofy claim and little more than attack right gatekeeping because the speaker thinks Fuentes&Co. is counterproductive to some of their shared causes
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
Hey, there are some of us who are actually consistent on this - pro-abortion, pro drug decriminalization, and anti-vaccination. You just won't find us in the Democratic party.
More options
Context Copy link
And sex work, and medical transition for minors.
More options
Context Copy link
Most voters, even Democratic voters, don't actually buy the bodily autonomy argument, even for abortion. If you ask if women should be able to abort a day before she's scheduled to give birth, for no reason beyond feeling like it, most will just divert the conversation ("that never happens!") instead of biting the bullet. It's something cooked up in a philosophy journal that works as a convenient one liner.
Or in other words, it's just the distaff/Blue counterpart to this.
The optimal number of murdered children in any society is still not 0 (and literally everyone accepts this- abortion is just more direct about it than others); what you're fighting over if you don't accept the argument works the exact same way from "the other" side is merely a question of how high that balance is, which causes are allowed to spend that balance, and for what reason. The pro-gun side's argument is that "complete disarmament would, counterintuitively, lead to more murder"; the pro-abortion side's argument is similarly utilitarian, so is the pro-trans one.
"The optimal number of in society is not 0" is about tradeoffs; it's not supposed to indicate you make no attempt to reduce X even when there's no cost to doing so.
The "all of them" response is not saying there's a tradeoff, it's not saying the optimal number of dead kids is non-zero; it's rejecting the tradeoff entirely, saying that no number of dead children is worth any gun control. Or would, if you took it literally. What it's actually saying is more like "we reject your framing, and fuck you". Which is much the same as what Fuentes is saying, except that women as a class are more sympathetic than gun grabbers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While this seems highly likely to anybody who looks at Fuentes' past stances and actions for more than five minutes, has anyone found any tangible proof of this fact yet?
I find it extremely suspicious that he was standing outside the Capitol with a bullhorn on January 6 yelling at people to storm the building in a way that was clearly criminal incitement, but nothing happened to him. People who did much lesser things that day ended up in federal prison for 10 years, but he’s just fine. Even though he’s someone who should be on the left’s shit list. I think he’s a fed.
There are shades between controlled opposition and uncompromisable crusader for the far right. It is indeed very suspicious that he didn’t go to jail, but it’s probably more likely that he just ratted a bunch of people out and cut a deal than that he’s a full-on federal asset.
There really aren't shades; you can't be a little bit compromised, because the ones who compromised you will use the smallest compromise to force larger ones. Pretty standard asset-recruiting technique.
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