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 -
Aren't Friend and Family something like the biggest class of people that abuse children? (the Brave summarizer "According to the National Children's Alliance, in substantiated child abuse cases, 77% of children were victimized by a parent.")
As another point, in the third world, if you aren't acting like a "hyper-paranoid schizo" in relation to traffic when you are a pedestrian, you become another cross in the sidewalk. But in general there is nothing more blackpilling that being politically aware in a thirdworld country.
When adjusted for the total amount of time the child spends in their company (I won't count the inherent trust of the relationship since trust is what we're debating in the first place)? Doubt it would be significant. 77% divided by ~10 years, compared to however many% are relative strangers divided by however much time they spend in the company of a given relative stranger.
Also, if I understand correctly that website counts neglect as abuse. Surely "withdrawal of care" is the optimistic baseline in the dog-eat-dog world framework, when we compare it to active abuse, let alone killing?
Re: traffic in the third world, in the literal example of traffic it's still neglect, not the desire to murder everyone around you. Even most criminals and organized gangsters have end-goals that aren't "kill everyone I see".
the point I was trying to make with that example is that:
isn't a sure. It may be true in general (maybe?), but not always. They have the ability to kill you, but there are incentives that make that course of action less optimal to them that pacific coexistence (see "crimes of passion" for when the incentives aren't enough of a deterrent).
"end-goals" there is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Swab's end-goal inn Ether mindscape isn't to torture the proles in perpetuity but as he put it "about enforcing your will on the proles where they lick your boots and ask for more". More to your point how about gladiatorial games for amusement?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link