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 mean, we can look at the data and see that they are attracted. Can we say why? Can we say that it's inherent? Probably not.
Look, when I was taking neuroscience in grad school (aligned with my actual work, unlike the queer theory (which I didn't even take for credit, just sat in on)), I learned about pair bonding and infidelity. There, we have an animal model (different species of voles) and a genetic correlate. Relative to the evidence we have for other human sexual preferences or attraction to symmetrical faces, it was pretty dynamite evidence. Now, was that even remotely enough evidence to actually say that infidelity is entirely (or even "mostly", or even "greater than X%, with X being like, I don't know, >20") biologically inherent? Not at all. Not even close. I don't think you have any clue just how far off we are.
Interestingly, the social use of sugar (and flooding the market with cheap sugar) has had quite harmful effects on plenty of folks.
Actually, it doesn't. My points don't require it. I have dug deep down the rabbit hole of sexual ethics in the past. I've even made arguments on reddit along those lines that other people have labeled 'pro-child sex'.
We have arrived all the way back to the very first comment I made in this thread: it's extremely common to fail to think on the margin.
We can't say that it's likely inherent if it's a consistent pattern among divergent cultures, including even isolated tribes that couldn't be affected by any social contagion? How far does this rabbit hole go? Can we not say that people are inherently generally attracted to other humans instead of trees (which some people are) then?
Almost every culture in human history, including highly divergent ones before they interacted to any significant degree, has had some manner of infidelity taboo. That's enough for me, because there's no other good causative mechanism to explain so much convergence without communication.
Okay, then they'd be zero carb sweetener pills. Point is, they'd be inert and harmless even if you could convince people to pop 5,000 of them a day (which you probably couldn't no matter how much purely media-based influence was applied because they're inert and thus pointless, which is my point).
Then what grand harms are you even worried about arising from the greater apprehension of minor sexual appeal?
Does the margin matter? There was a meme going around a while back, mostly a right-wing troll but still a victim of Poe's law, that White leftists should kill themselves to make reparations for their contributions to system racism, White privilege, etc. As far as I know there is not a single confirmed case of anyone biting. If it had been promoted more, say by the mainstream media, I bet you'd still get less than 500 people (probably far less) going for it and we'd almost certainly be better off without them anyway. Of course as mentioned above you need to define what concrete harm you're worried about before you start worrying about the margin of it.
That is a factor in favor of some parts of the nature/nurture spectrum, but is not solely determinate. I've also seen arguments for things like a "gay germ", which is not conclusive by an means in its own domain, but which at least continues to broaden the spectrum of possibilities and ushers caution in believing that such simple metrics are completely determinate.
I wasn't talking about the taboo. I was talking about the behavior.
For the purposes of the question at hand, absolutely. If you'd like to concede the question at hand and then move the goalposts to a new question, please do so explicitly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link