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 -
Because the head tilt is (by assumption) done consciously and deliberately to signal one's desire to be kissed. I am allergic to the notion that some kind of background relationship creates a condition of implied consent, but admittedly that is probably because my reference class is situations where that implied consent is used to override more conscious nonconsent which is not happening here.
I agree that the wife in question doesn't have a subjective experience of harm, and not for reasons of brainwashing or anything like that. I also don't think a subjective experience of harm is necessary for one to be harmed. Take another low stakes example: I am substantially late (say 30m) to some kind of activity with my friends, delaying them. Even if none of them subjectively thought of themselves as harmed by my lateness, I still think of myself as having harmed them (in a very small way) by wasting their time. I think there are lots of small ways people harm each other (in the sense that it would have been better if they did otherwise) that are also small enough that even simple reproach1 might be too much of a punishment.
If your friends feel annoyed or disrespected by you showing up late, you have harmed them (in however minor a way). If they don't (because "we'll be there around 10, but show up whenever suits, people will be coming and going"), you have not harmed them in any way. The idea that "harm" can simply exist, floating through space like luminiferous aether, in the absence of anyone who believes they have been harmed, is just too preposterous for me to even consider. Harm is either objective (a broken leg, a shattered windscreen) or subjective (hurt feelings, trauma). The loving husband kissing his sleeping wife who loves him satisfies neither criterion.
So what, the loving husband has done some nonzero amount of harm to his loving wife by "failing to respect her bodily autonomy" by kissing her on the lips at a time at which she was technically unable to give affirmative consent? Please. If anything I'd think she'd be more insulted (i.e. harmed) if he didn't kiss her goodbye. "What, you trust me so little that you're refusing to kiss me when I'm half-asleep, in case I turn around and accuse you of sexual assault down the line?"
An excellent series of posts mon frere, I couldn't have said it better myself.
It's a good thing this isn't complicated!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link