site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35585 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thank you. So what is your point with this? People are freaks if they talk about their kinks to an audience who wants to hear about it? Are you saying that the government shouldn't hire people who talk about their personal life?

Are you saying that the government shouldn't hire people who talk about their personal life?

You know what? Yes. I don't need to know shit like this about people in the public eye. I don't want to know it. If they want to talk about it to a particular audience, find somewhere private to do that.

God almighty, the whole gay rights decriminalise sodomy and later on legalise same-sex marriage was publicised as "it's nobody's business what two consenting people do in private in the bedroom". Now we have people dragging us into their bedrooms, or rather putting their bedrooms out in the public square, in order to tell us all about what they do.

Shut. The. Hell. Up. About. Your. Love. Life. That goes for straight celebs as well.

Now we have people dragging us into their bedrooms, or rather putting their bedrooms out in the public square, in order to tell us all about what they do.

What? Where in this story is Brinton dragging you into their bedroom and forcing you to learn about what they do? Yes, there are articles that talk about Brinton's sexual kinks. Yes, you can find Brinton talking about these kinks on youtube as well.

But that is literally what people/media do: They talk about shit. If you don't like it, you don't have to click. Or read. Or listen. There is nothing being 'forced' here. Their beds aren't out in the public square - their story is in a link that you chose to click.

Since sharing your sexual kinks isn't illegal, this entire issue can be chalked up to personal preference. I read shit I don't agree with all the time and move along since it doesn't apply to me. I know you don't support this but that doesn't mean that it's automatically bad and should be done in your way. Make me an argument about why this is morally wrong and/or should be considered illegal. That's valid. But getting frustrated like this is the same thing as some Karen yelling at people blasting music in their cars. Move on.

Yes, he is a sexual deviant. That’s in itself only one strike against him, but he has dedicated a significant portion of his life to spreading(technically ‘advocating’) his sexual deviancy. And I’m totally comfortable saying the government shouldn’t hire people who talk about how awesome it is to have sex with animals.

Yes, he is a sexual deviant.

Just to be clear, this is just your opinion. I'd like to hear more about why you think they're a sexual deviant with more reasons than 'I disagree'.

And I’m totally comfortable saying the government shouldn’t hire people who talk about how awesome it is to have sex with animals.

I'm not familiar with them ever advocating for sex with actual animals, rather just some sort of creative role-playing. Otherwise we'd be in jail when girls call us daddy in bed. Regardless, I'm still interested to hear exactly why you think this sort of role play is so bad as to justify the government knowing about it.

just some sort of creative role-playing.

But remember folks, there is no such thing as the slippery slope! Posting images of yourself in BDSM harness gear with your puppy subs kneeling beside you isn't any big deal! It's just normal sexual behaviour like cis het people holding hands in public!

Pretending to have sex with animals is degenerate sexual deviancy for the same reasons lolicon is- sure, it may not be the sort of thing that should be illegal, but it's very definitely morally suspect to imitate a forbidden act as closely as can be for delectation. I don't think we should go digging to see if anyone has ever dressed up as a puppy during sex, but when you're giving public conferences about it, well, kinda don't get to claim it's totally private anymore.

Just to be clear, this is just your opinion. I'd like to hear more about why you think they're a sexual deviant with more reasons than 'I disagree'.

Words have commonly-accepted meanings. The commonly-accepted meaning of "deviant," as memorialized in Webster's dictionary, is "straying or deviating especially from an accepted norm" or "someone or something that deviates from a norm, especially: a person who differs markedly (as in social adjustment or behavior) from what is considered normal or acceptable"

It seems fairly noncontroversial to me that Brinton's (1) style of dress, (2) preferred pronoun, (3) self-described "sadistic" sexuality, and (4) particular interest in "pup play" puts him far outside of the norm of gender presentation and sexual behavior in the west.

If he deliberately makes his private life public, people should be able to make negative inferences about him based on the information that he voluntarily made public.

I'm not so sure this info becoming public was exactly voluntary but I digress. I guess I'm the type who doesn't think that one should make negative inferences without having good reasons. So I'd ask myself what exactly I dislike about them and if it is something that I should find to be morally bad.

Without that, anyone that looks or does anything differently than you just automatically becomes a freak. Seems like a reductive way to live but to each their own.

It was involuntary that he gave an interview and multiple public facing talks discussing his very strange sex life?

By this reasoning, he could be perpetually unwashed and swear all the time and nobody should say anything negative about that. In fact, by this reasoning, dress codes anywhere would be worthy of condemnation unless they actually pose health risks if not followed.

I think this is a very interesting point. I'm not too familiar with Dreher but I find his article quite interesting. Under his framework, does he expand any further into where he draws the line in terms of kinks? Nazi role play of course sounds gross, but even mainstream kinks (like BDSM) also sound pretty gross too. I just don't know where to draw the line at a point where it isn't completely arbitrary.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats