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 -
Biological adults interested in sex, news at 11.
Why should society's failure to reify the pretenses it currently has about teenagers, or parents failing to parent, ever be my fucking problem?
Those who failed to learn the lessons of the early 2000s are doomed to repeat them forever; what continuously puzzles me is the proportion of parents who were children at that time that don't seem to fully understand this even though they by all rights should. Censorship is effective- that's part of why we continually insist on doing it, after all- but a technological solution to a people problem doesn't solve the people problem that, as a parent, one should obviously be much more interested in actually solving (since the legislature won't)... and if they're not so invested, I don't see why I should have to subsidize these parents' pretense that their 17 year old is still 7 for just a little while longer. Letting them pollute the commons with this extra tax is not acceptable.
Younger children don't tend to search for porn because, should you be fortunate enough to remember what being one is like, it's gross and weird if you don't have the software package that lets you appreciate it. Hell, half of the reason parents even consider turning the parental controls on in the first place is because their kid brought them something they didn't fully understand (because clearly the way you reward your child's trust in you is to respond by revoking your trust in them; it's basically like telling your son who's smart enough to tell the neighborhood creep "no" despite never having received formal instructions to do so that he must now wear a condom at all times).
As far as the teenagers go, of course, you're past the point of realistically controlling them especially if they've inherited enough of their parents disagreeableness to find other ways; general purpose computers that can trivially bypass these blocks are easily-concealable and generally within teenage budgets.
As for your other points:
Realistically, they're just going to go to sites that happen to feature a significant number of results with participants a lot closer to their own age (worth noting that this is the main reason 4chan exists). So instead of being exposed to material traditionalist-progressives are merely concerned about, they'll see material about which they're absolutely apoplectic. At least it's higher-quality than whatever self-indulgent garbage progressives think is worthy of school libraries, and sites that feature this aren't generally trying to manipulate you into clicking on uglier porn like PornHub does, but it's the same "well they banned heroin so everyone just uses fentanyl now because it's easier to get" thing. Some jurisdictions are angrier about that material existing than others; I'm sure throwing the odd teenager in jail over loli is going to make things so much better for everyone just like it already does when they catch him with a nude his girlfriend sent him, and is definitely a good use of our resources.
Legislation can, and has, replaced parenting but only in the "makes it worse for anyone with an IQ above 70" direction. Bad parents don't follow the rules, good parents don't need them, and in its majestic equality the law prohibits both from ignoring them.
You misspelled "will"; this is a target for actors with State-level resources for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
Most countries whose citizens have at least a vague notion of free speech already get hauled to jail for posting edgy memes on Twitter (they're generally stupid enough to use their real names when signing up for their accounts). The porn equivalent of that would be bad, actually.
No, it's just the more mundane "stop doing what I don't like"/"I don't want to solve the problem, I want to ban X" thing that slave morality modes don't see as distinct from evil.
This is the root problem. Perhaps we should just mandate puberty blockers for all minors, thereby removing the hormonal incentive to watch porn. /sarcasm.
More options
Context Copy link
It seems self-evident to me that a citizen should have an interest in the direction of the society in which he lives. As part of that, a citizen should also be interested in the way future adult citizens are likely to turn out.
Of course, we are. As stated otherwise in your comment's parent: Using a legislative banhammer on the most compliant and controlled porn sites to replace the scalpel of "being a decent fucking parent" is blowback incarnate.
None of this shit works, and I say this as someone who believes wholeheartedly that early exposure to porn is a huge net negative. It's up there with cookie consent popups in terms of bone-headed do-goodism with no thought about the consequences.
You can’t shelter your kids that much without fucking up at least a little bit. I’ve met(and been called in to clean up) the results; without a supportive broader society, the kind of sheltering that is necessary for that makes broken and dysfunctional young men.
I agree totally that sheltering children too much is poor parenting. I see it every day, and am perhaps the most free-range parent in my generation that I personally know.
I have my limits, and they're somewhere around violent, vomitous, bukkake gangbangs being two clicks away.
There's no question that if a kid wants to get to pornography in my household at an early age, they will find a way. Erecting reasonable barriers to entry and making a reasonable case to just... hold off for a bit is my plan. Learning about sex on various textual forums served me very well, I have no intention of blocking that.
My kids are young, I don't know if it will work. We'll see.
I misread your comment; I thought you were either delusional as to the effectiveness of parental controls/internet filtering, or intending to raise your children far more sheltered than that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What does "being a decent parent" involve? What's the proper strategy?
A combination of managing your own household censorship regime and having frank conversations about why you've implemented it.
The analog to illegal drugs is a good one. I don't care if my 18-year-old kid smokes weed every once in a while, but I'm very uninterested in giving them the greenlight at 14.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly where I get stuck. The lack of theory of mind for teenagers that the geezers seem to have is absolutely remarkable. Do they not recall being a teenager? Were they actually just weird, broken-brained teenagers that didn't act the way the rest of us did? People seem to believe that teenage males aren't the horniest human beings on the planet. The lengths that a teenage guy would go to for a half-hearted handjob from a girlfriend are legendary. Somehow, I'm supposed to believer that political boomers are going to implement policy that will prevent them from accessing pornography? Come on, this is so obviously stupid that it makes the TSA seem like a pretty good plan for security by comparison.
This is one of those traits where there's really massive variance, and it's likely both genetic and cultural. I have been in groups where nearly everyone had an extremely low baseline level of horniness as a teen (this includes people I am close enough to that I know they are not lying for social reasons) and within groups where everyone admits they were psychotically horny as teens.
These two types of people tend to self-sort pretty strongly from a young age, and they tend to understand each other poorly.
Yep. I sorted into the group where romance was interesting, but sex was pointless and unappealing at our stage of life. At one point I asked my mother (in the context of abortion), "Why do people have sex if they don't want to have a baby?" and she stuttered, "Some people find it pleasurable."
I was aware of the people who talked about sex while playing Truth or Dare, but I had long ago labeled these people as "not friend material" before I even knew what sex was. They were the kids who thought Bs were a good grade, or didn't listen to adults when they forbade us from doing things, and being near these kids made me uncomfortable.
I've seen the phrase "time preference" thrown around here, I think it correlates strongly to the two groups.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Evidently yes, but they might also be lying or otherwise acting in bad faith.
You can typically and trivially differentiate the people who don't or won't remember from the people who do/will because the people who won't remember typically use some form of the phrase "raging
melaninhormones" as an excuse.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link