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 -
Is this your only criteria? It isn't. Because if it were, you would have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances.
Furthermore, let's get into temporal preferences and shifts in self-perspective over time. Maybe this woman can convince herself that she's "happy" with it for some amount of time. I'd argue, given the clip shared, that that amount of time was, at most, the time between the end of this sexual act and when that clip was filmed. Regret may have been forestalled, and it then arrives on camera.
(Interesting aside: this has a bizarre connection to false/not-false rape allegations. Two people are "happy about it" in the moment. The next day, one of them wakes up feeling less "happy about it" and files the allegation. A complex and high stakes legal process then ensues wherein both parties try to somehow prove how they felt about what at which times).
People are often flawed at judging what is good for them and what makes them truly happy. To combat this, we try to develop systems of normative thinking to assist. Some people call this morals, ethics, virtues etc.
Show me the moral/ethical/virtue system that says "Sex with 100 strangers in an hour" is permissible. Aside from moral relativism, out and out hedonism, or nihilism, it doesn't exist.
To the extent that it's a moral system in addition to a political one, it's called liberalism.
Why would liberals have to allow this? Locke, for example, absolutely thought the government could punish sexual immorality. I'm not familiar enough with his work to know whether there's any inconsistencies there, but it seems like, as a matter of fact, most liberal societies thought banning that sort of thing was fine.
They wouldn't have to. In another comment I wrote:
It's perfectly consistent of Locke to think "what some other person believes about the ontological character of the communion wafer does not affect you personally, so let them do as they please; but the normalisation of sodomy, adultery and promiscuity absolutely do have distributed negative effects on society, and so should be forbidden and socially stigmatised". Whereas a more modern liberal generally takes the attitude of "people are entitled to their own opinions" and "what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of the government's business, and by extension none of society's business".
I don't have a good answer as to which interpretation of liberalism is better or more conducive to human flourishing. "As long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights" permits a lot of degrees of freedom to permit certain things and forbid others.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You know what, fair. Thank you.
I'll pivot and, then, say that liberalism is a fantastic moral and political system for speedrunning towards the destruction of human integrity and the destruction of individual dignity. If such a path leads to such desolation, of what use is the path?
Liberalism has been around a few centuries and hasn't led to desolation yet. I'd rather not get off the path or take doommongering too seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
Wouldn't the counter-argument be that, prior to the invention of liberalism, Europe was constantly tearing itself apart in holy wars? I doubt many of the people whose lives were constantly being disrupted as a result felt terribly dignified about the whole matter.
I'm not saying that "I'd rather be dead than compromise my integrity and dignity" is an incoherent or obviously ridiculous statement - there really are certain principles I hold which I would rather die than violate, or certain experiences which I find the idea of going through so humiliating that I would rather die than experience them. But I would like to be reassured that whatever you're proposing as an alternative to liberalism wouldn't immediately lead to hundreds of years of civil war and the immediate cessation of all meaningful human progress and economic development.
Other than the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), what other "holy wars" do you have in mind, such that "Europe was constantly tearing itself apart"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
So, the smaller post-Reformation conflicts leading up to the Thirty Years War?
What about the many, many centuries before the Reformation? Europe wasn't exactly "tearing itself apart in holy wars" then, now was it? It still looks to me like Europe has spent a minority of the last couple millennia in "holy wars" — certainly not enough time to deserve the term "constantly."
Well, obviously there were no holy wars (in the sense of intra-Christian wars) prior to the Reformation. Why would you start a holy war with someone who believes in the same creed you do? It's tautological.
Then Europe wasn't constantly "tearing itself apart in holy wars," but only doing so part of the time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
judeo-roman wars, islamic conquests and ongoing jihad, ridda wars, shia-sunni wars, crusades in the levant, fourth crusade against constantinople, albigensian crusade, northern crusades, hussite wars.
Before the catholic-protestant wars, the best one for folamh3’s argument is the islam-christianity war, as a constant, religiously motivated conflict which never really ended and kept eastern europe and the mediterranean bloody for a thousand years.
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
So out and out hedonism it is.
Ironically I do think that there are systems of ethics that have a coherent claim to not just allow this behavior but make it virtuous. But nobody actually cares about weird sex positive pagans anymore.
I don't think liberalism is interchangeable with hedonism. My one-sentence gloss of hedonism is "do whatever you find pleasurable", which quickly spirals into libertine degeneracy. My one-sentence gloss of liberalism is "do whatever you want as long you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights", which quickly spirals into endless debates about distributed effects and externalities and "but how does this affect you personally" and so on. But to a first approximation, I fail to see how this adult woman having sex with a hundred consenting adult men directly infringes on anyone else's rights.
Bounded or not by pragmatic guidelines, the ultimate goal is indeed to realize whim and desire with no examination as to whether that is proper.
What OP surely means by a "moral system" is such an examination. Ethics of any kind.
If the answer to "what is to be done" is "realize desire", then it is hedonism.
Indeed the only reason for the limitation you point to is that in violating someone's rights you are preventing them from realizing their desire also. What are we then to believe if not that this is just hedonism, if of a pragmatic nature.
It does not, but that's the contention: that there is more to ethics than consent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am a pretty moral person. I have a strong moral code. I am generally nice to others. I try to help people. I think that things like murder and rape are fundamentally wrong in an absolute way. And I have absolutely no problem with someone having sex with 100 strangers in an hour. The idea that there would be a moral issue about it strikes me as somewhat absurd.
As for drugs, I would prefer that people not get addicted to them, but there is no moral dimension about it for me.
A self-referential argument from authority is a hell of way to make a point.
What, then, does have a "moral dimension" for you? Are you saying that many things in life are not only inherently ammoral, but immune to morality?
Well, I already said that I think murder and rape are fundamentally wrong in an absolutely way, so certainly those have a moral dimension for me. But promiscuity doesn't.
Also, I'm not trying to argue from authority, I'm just pointing out that I'm not a moral relativist or a nihilist, and I may or may not be a hedonist depending on how you define hedonism, yet I don't see any moral issue with promiscuity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not trying to speak for 100Proof by replying, just my opinion here.
Allowing oneself to weigh 600 pounds undoubtedly hurts one. Having sex with 100 people in a day does not undoubtedly hurt one.
That's debatable. But your comment makes me wonder if there were any sort of screening of these men for STIs, beyond simply "Hey do you have any?" I somehow doubt it.
Why doubt that? Requiring a ticket to ride is pretty standard procedure.
For whom? I feel like a girl advertising for sex wanting only a photo of your face and you holding up an email address (or whatever it was) is not particularly cautious. I could be wrong, of course.
Aella's gangbang for instance required std screening. It's just kind of one of the first things you'd think of when considering logistics for this sort of thing.
I am disappointed that I actually do remember this occurred at some point.
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
More options
Context Copy link
I have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I have no problem with it because it's none of my business how they choose to live their lives.
I think this response is beautiful. This was the standard response of the laissez-faire economist and the social liberal pre-2024. It has dominated western politics and was basically the default position of anyone who drank water, breathed air, and wanted to not be fucked with. Leave well enough alone, what I do is my business. You don't have a right to tell me what to do, and I don't have a right to tell anyone what to do.
I also think that this response is very dated. Partly as a result of the way the internet systematically crushed the vast majority of social barriers to information, partly because of the wilful detonation of social structures and institutions (What if people are excluded? Well, then everyone needs to be excluded! Wait, why'd they let that in? Screw this, I'm outta here!).
There is a fantasy of man as an island that has never gone away.
It is still possible, for some, to a limited extent. For the rest of us, who don't hunt, kill and butcher our own meat, make our own clothing, craft our own domiciles and generate our own electrical power, we have to engage with society in some way. But that breaks the fantasy. We wish to think of ourselves as alone, fully in control of our own destinies, that society loses more from us not participating in it than we lose by not participating in society.
I think we're past that. Isolated as we are, we are all easy pickings for those who've managed to coordinate meanness. I think that's also why people have such poor reactions to this poor creature who has sold her body to a crowd for attention. They are concerned with great ideas, like the collapse of pair bonding, stable male-female relationships, and what this signals for both sides of the fence, as well as the governments that rule them. Maybe some of them are concerned for her mental well-being, who knows. It's a tug of war between those who see society as something to be preserved, shaped in a way that benefits them, or at least in a way that doesn't make their lives actively worse, and those who couldn't give a hundred fucks about society.
We do not care for the crackhead. What he does with crack is his business. But we do not live near him either.
More options
Context Copy link
Please meet Daniel Penny, another person who didn't care how others choose to live their lives until he really, really cared.
I mean this is such a naive response. Of course no one should care how another person lives their own private life. But we live in a society. We interact with one another. If your horribly addicted to drugs, you might choose to "involve" yourself in my life in a drastic way.
Perhaps you'll say, "oh, sure, you can beat the crap out of an addict if they accost you" - but the median position in society is that we shouldn't let people become addicted (to at least the illegal substances) so that we can avoid the far more costly "beat up the zombies" method of social regulation.
Blind/naive libertarianism is just such a poor way of even approach the world. Complex system interact with one another. Unintended consequences are real. People's quality of life extends beyond the walls of their apartments.
A person becoming addicted to drugs to the point that he starts to be violent to people or overuse the healthcare system is a social problem because, well, he starts to be violent to people or overuse the healthcare system. A person choosing to have sex with 100 men in one day in a safe manner causes no harm to others that I can think of. I guess you can put forward complicated theories that boil down to some kind of magically contagious social rot, but I neither find having sex with 100 people in a day to be rotten nor am I convinced that its contagious nature is much of a problem.
It causes harm to the self. That's the whole point. This was a bad decision by the lady in question and it was a bad decision that should be easy to avoid.
Again, utilitarianism and/or libertarianism congratulate themselves by saying "we have a hard line up against harming others" conveniently leaving out that all "others" are "selves" depending on reference point. While I definitely don't think the power of the State should be employed to inhibit people from doing things that may or may not be harmful to themselves, I do believe that a useful moral system must necessarily state that there are some actions and motivations that are harmful to the self (and do not offset this with noble and/or virtuous self-sacrifice ) and ought to be avoided for moral reasons ... not just in service of a self-preservation instinct.
It causes harm to the self if you're the kind of person who is harmed by having sex with 100 people in a day, in which case you shouldn't do it. If you're the kind of person who isn't harmed by it, your argument doesn't apply.
More options
Context Copy link
Would you say it's immoral for someone to intentionally burn themselves so they could get a cool scar? What about smashing their own (non shared) things in a fit of rage?
Do they correctly dispose of the smashed bits afterwards? Did they do the smashing when I don't have to see or hear them and they aren't inconveniencing anyone?
Is the scar in a visible part of the body? Will it be deleterious to their health now or in the future?
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
What if they took a drug that caused 100% of users to violently assault the next person they see? What about 50% or 10%?
Because other people using drugs does actually affect you in most cases. Whether it's something relatively small like having to step around hobo puke on the sidewalk, or something more direct like a junkie biting your face off because they're high on bath salts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link