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 -
? There is little that is more right-wing/traditional than men having sex with/possessing/being betrothed to young girls, including in the pedophilic range. The age of consent in colonial Delaware was explicitly set at 7. (Was the founding generation of the United States leftist now?) Most modern ages of consent are far newer than the 19th Amendment, much less the 13th and 14th. (I guess those are based now, the tradition and heritage that right-wingers are trying to defend?) For example, Georgia's age of consent wasn't raised from 14 to 16 until 1995 (and wasn't raised from 10 to 14 until 1918, almost the exact same time as the 19th Amendment).
It was in fact specifically the same feminism behind the 19th Amendment which made campaigning to raise the age of consent one of its first orders of business, even before allowing women to vote or prohibition. Basically any age of consent beyond around 10-12 (at least in the modern West as far as I know) or so originates from and is originally an invention of modern, progressive, and explicitly feminist (again in origination) leftism (and even the earlier ones are evidence of those tendencies in a more primordial form).
So I'm afraid that I feel like it is you who is "bending beyond the breaking point" what "right-wing" should mean by apparently suggesting/implying that 99% of right-wingers throughout history somehow weren't actually right-wing. To the vast, overwhelmingly majority of the most trad, masculine, and right-wing men in history (so right-wing they didn't even call themselves "right-wing" in most cases because it was simply the accepted default norms of behavior), the age of consent was either "absurdly" low (by modern standards), non-existent, or likely, in many if not most cases, nonsensical as a concept: If a man is in possession of a female, if she is his property, and if he wishes to make sexual use of his property according to his own preferences and natural rights to unrestricted use of what belongs to him, then what matter is her age? Why would he bother waiting? Because older women don't like that unrestricted access by men to younger ones readily crowds them out of the sexual market? This is the concern of the properly right-wing male?
(We must also consider, as a semi-famous /pol/ post wrote, that nowadays many of the most hardcore right-wingers believe/understand that waiting also usually just amounts to simply a policy of "Give Tyrone and Muhammad [names copied verbatim, not intended derisively] a turn first.", as we all know that many if not most of the "precious" underage girls who supposedly need our "protection" from the "traumatizing" matter of sex certainly aren't waiting/"protecting" themselves from it until they turn 18... Is it very trad, right-wing, and based to ensure that the first penis inside the mother of your children is not likely to be your own and quite likely to be non-White (or of another tribe in general)?)
Would another man tell him that he must leave his meat for some particular period of time before eating it or let his spear "mature" before he takes it into battle? Of course not. Who cares? It's his. So why shouldn't that apply equally to his feminine property (as I assure you almost all men throughout history who were far more right-wing than you or 99% of modern so-called "right-wingers" (and who would likely think of you and them as an "effeminate abominations of modernity" or some equivalent (not saying that as a direct insult/sneer, just emphasizing their vast differences and analogizing to how many modern right-wingers often tend to see modern left-wingers), just as much as you likely think that of some modern left-wingers or kindergarten-attending drag queens) almost certainly considered their females to be some variation of (by modern standards especially))?
Explain that to me in right-wing terms. And explain it to this guy while you're at it too, how he's some sort of naturally left-wing degenerate who someone needs to ride in on a high horse of right-wing propriety to correct. Explain it to the notoriously feminist left-wing progressive (by modern standards) Romans (sarcasm) too.
(Protip: You won't be able to use, for the example, The Bible, as much as that is in my view a Jewish invention/instrument of subversion against the Roman hierarchy and thus actually not really properly/ideally right-wing itself (at least in its non-Aryanized form), because it doesn't mandate/suggest any age of consent and often quite blatantly condones violations against our society's current Holy Number of 18. (That is, even the guys against the Romans for not being egalitarian/left-wing enough saw no problems with their sexual predilections in regards to age.) But I suppose medieval Crusaders weren't as right-wing as the modern median oh-so-hardcore "trad" online right-winger because they... post about how they don't like drag queens online? Or about how restoring natural masculine sexual age freedom that most men throughout history wouldn't have even thought twice about is just "edgy musing"? I can't say they've exactly been upstaged here.)
Consider the following:
Do not confuse certain irregularities of the modern political realm with the absolute truth of political ontology for all time. That would be a severe error that would potentially make you look quite foolish.
More options
Context Copy link