site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30380 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 2023

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I know there are large downsides that come with not buying your children a smartphone. My point is, if you already have, your child already has access to more pro-LGBTQ content, woke propaganda, creepy pornography etc. than they could consume in ten lifetimes. Complaining about a few books in a library when you've already bought them a smartphone is trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Would you deny them a camera, or require them to carry both flip phone and digital camera separately?

I'm not a parent, but if I was, I think I'd actively prefer my children not to have access to a digital camera until they're of age. It greatly reduces the risk of their disseminating pornographic images of themselves without understanding the ramifications thereof.

Counterpoint, as a child I happily consumed plenty of "age-inappropriate" material with absolutely no negative ramifications, and I consider the whole thing to be an overblown moral panic, even leaving aside my anecdata.

I'm within 2-5 years of having a kid of my own (Jesus time flies), and I fully intend to let them do whatever the fuck they like on the internet, as long as it isn't spending my money on gacha games and lootboxes.

They'll get smartphones, tablets, PCs and VR as soon as they can use them, assuming I can wrangle their potential mother into agreement. The only reason I'd ever withhold access to any of them is because they've demonstrated that they can't help but abuse them.

Also, the odds of any child born after today ever having to worry about leaked nudes is minuscule verging on nonexistent, given the existence of deepfakes as plausible deniability, let alone panopticon surveillance for child porn if they're young enough. That's completely leaving aside that I expect the world to be nigh unrecognizable in 10 years or so, if we're even alive to see it.

as a child I happily consumed plenty of "age-inappropriate" material with absolutely no negative ramifications,

Well, count yourself lucky. (that is, if you know you can count yourself lucky. Do you wake up with morning erections regularly, like you should at your age ? No problems having sex ? No problems with anhedonia, lack of motivation, flat emotions ?)

Tens of millions of people aren't.

The question is how much of that is attributable to the consumption of "age-inappropriate media". It's not that hard to find tens of millions of people suffering from most things that vague, in a population of 8 billion after all.

I am clinically depressed, but that was only an issue after high school, and if I go a few days without jerking off, I'm as randy as a goat.

The question is how much of that is attributable to the consumption of "age-inappropriate media".

You didn't answer the question.

It's very likely related as there are no other good explanations for why people with these symptoms suffer withdrawal symptoms associated with psychological dependence.

Or, you know, lack morning erections entirely, which means either severe depression or serious lack of testosterone.

You asked plenty of questions, to answer them.

Yes I have morning wood, thanks for asking.

No to the latter.

I already said I'm clinically depressed, but that the circumstances behind it have no bearing to your hypothesis.

Who exactly are "these people"? I do not deny that porn addiction with concomitant problems is real, my assertion is that it's not meaningfully linked to Western prudishness about what is and isn't appropriate for kids.

it's not meaningfully linked to Western prudishness about what is and isn't appropriate for kids.

Western prudishness about what is and isn't acceptable to kids is based on quite old concerns about compulsive masturbation, which was probably far less crippling and prevalent than pornography addiction.

I'd not be surprised if at some point knowingly giving access to pornography to minors was made a criminal offense within the next 20 years in some western country.

Complaining about a few books in a library when you've already bought them a smartphone is trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The internet is a bit like the Wild West - partly because a lot of it is actually distant in terms of producers, even if it feels close. We expect actual physical locations near us managed by supposedly accountable adults (allegedly) of our culture paid for that task to behave differently.

Obviously what an "Instathot" can do on Tiktok is different from what we want to see at a McDonald's or in a classroom.

Part of the problem is precisely that those lines are ever blurrier.

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