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 -
I don’t think any historical system can be said to ‘actually work’, but especially not the chimera of incoherent nonsense embodying our sexual mores these last years. And even if the old ones did, technological advances like the pill have made them obsolete.
I don’t propose my strict rape standard as some glorious RETVRN point, it’s just the best, most legible standard, gender-neutral, as liberal as it gets and in line with the rest of (less emotionally and religiously charged) jurisprudence.
I feel like you’re trying to sneak in ‘underage’ into your draconian ‘babysitter rule’ from earlier. I was thinking, schwarzenegger.
Most of what they considered illicit sex (between two unmarried adults, between men, with vestal virgins, etc) has rightly been declared licit, because sex is of little consequence in the modern world. So its ongoing criminalization in eg the workplace, is a pure loss (while being quietly tolerated as long as the woman feels like it, which is also harmful to the rule of law).
But what some ancients considered illicit-innocent-women-sex is an actually decent, generalizable standard for illicit sex. The rest is yesterday’s garbage.
I find that a far-fetched scenario, no one needs weeks. But even if the women were ready to flee, were they going to starve on the street? Again, I expect people to show just a little bit of courage, instead of warping the justice system to accommodate them.
I don’t fear luca brasi. The state protects me from luca brasi’s superior force (which is a gun btw) , like it protects women from mine (and I don’t even have a gun). Equality before the law works. Let’s not make up arcane rules about -if citizen A is heavier/smarter/more famous than citizen B, give B retroactive consent-cancelling power on all his contracts.
No? I don’t get your point here. People fetch their boss’ coffee, and do other tasks they feel queasy about for the paycheck, all the time. This doesn’t give them the legal right to attack their boss five years later.
And in societies where fetch me coffee is a normal incident, people with options stop working outside the home, because working sucks.
More options
Context Copy link