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 -
This is where we defer to the Constitution and more broadly the justice system in a liberal democratic republic like the USA, isn't it? Certainly anyone is free to find anything immoral for any reason, but for criminalizing images, in the USA, there would have to be more justification than just finding them immoral. IANAL and I don't know about the specific legal reasoning behind criminalizing some types of porn, but given the strong free speech protections due to the 1st amendment, I imagine carving out exceptions to free speech in order to criminalize them must involve at least some consideration of the empirical reality surrounding them, such as how fair use for using copyrighted material partly hinges on if it competes directly with the original copyrighted work.
Of course, the moral judgments of society also affect the Constitution and the law, but the system is designed to make such effects go through multiple layers before taking effect. And in the case of criminalizing something purely on grounds of finding it immoral and nothing else, at least in the US, that tends to be a lot of layers. One can circumvent that by stepping up another meta level and replacing the Constitution wholesale in one shot, but that also tends to be difficult mainly for physical reasons.
"Carving out exceptions" isn't exactly what's going on, though the difference may seem pedantic outside philosophy-of-law discussions. The idea is that the original philosophical concept of free speech at the time it was instantiated into the First Amendment wasn't a complete blanket protection of all communication, from which exceptions were carved for practical reasons--it was that several types of communication did not fall under free speech at all, and never did. So categories like slander, perjury, or obscenity occupy their own metaphorical territory beyond the borders of free speech.
You still have the same debate as to where the correct line is between protected speech, and say, slander, though the philosophical grounding may affect aspects of the debate like burdens of proof and so forth. Copyright is an interesting example, because there's a longstanding debate over whether "intellectual property" is a philosophically-grounded right prior to its legal protection--that is, is IP created by or recognized by the laws protecting it. (The various items in the Bill of Rights fall into the "recognized by" category, incidentally.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link