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 -
If you want one to provide an argument that wins against your hypothetical nebulous "them", then it's a rigged game from the start. Any opposing force that behaves like you describe will either force their rules through if they're stronger, or won't if they aren't. There isn't any point in discussing arguments, just push against them with the same "ew, date someone your own age, creep" that works well now. Or woodchippers, if you're more physically inclined.
The current concept of the age of consent is a messy empirical thing that evolved from (obligatory disclaimer that the list is non-exhaustive):
A non-empirical, rigorous case can probably be made against the big P Pedophilia, as in involving the big C Children. Anything with teens? I see two ways for you if you want to reduce the impact of any nebulous MAPs who are gonna come out of the woodwork any second now. If you want to prevent the acts from happening, go chip in with the "ew, she's only 19 and you're 25, are you too infantile for mature women?" crowd. If you are more interested in preventing harm, improving society in the direction that will actually make teens better equipped to handle relations with adults (sexual and otherwise) seems to be the way.
Fair enough. The context of this perspective is that we saw them just lie about what we know about reality in order to win political victories and then subsequently freely admit that it was all bullshit, but that it doesn't matter now that they won. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether that model of a rigged game reflects underlying reality or a mere rhetorical trick.
Unfortunately, I don't see much in the rest of your comment that would really go against anything that I've said, in particular. In fact, your closing
seems to dive right into the mire. That is exactly the hypothetical route that I am proposing they will use to achieve their goals, and you are saying that we should plow forward, full steam ahead. More comprehensive sex education, more earlier! Where to draw the line? Lines? Where we're going, we don't need "lines". I don't usually talk a lot about the topic, but it shows up here often, plenty of examples of these folks just brazenly having more sexual "education", with more sexually-explicit teaching materials, at ever younger ages, with it 'never being too soon' to start teaching children how to be better equipped to handle relations with adults (sexual and otherwise). I also don't actually claim a super strong predictive position of to what extent these types of efforts could empirically be successful. But I do strongly claim that the people who think this have a violent, fundamental clash of foundational theoretical principles with the people who think, "It is trivial that children cannot consent." I think a lot of people were forced to parrot the latter in order to not be an X-ophobe and to support the Good and Righteous Fight, and they do not realize that their "enlightened societal learning" is already being implicitly viewed as false, just like they didn't realize that their "enlightened societal learning" on biological determinism of sexual orientation was basically a lie from the start, pushed for political gains, but already disbelieved by those who have other foundational theoretical principles.
No, I don't mean "better more earlier sex education". I mean addressing the power/status disparity, atomization, pregnancy/STD risk and other factors that make teens ill-equipped to participate in society. It is not a simple task, it is not just about teens and it certainly won't amount to "better education".
Ah yes, with Fully-Automated, Luxury Gay Space Communism (plus even more plus good contraceptive education/use), finally we will overcome the silly hangups of backwards, religious, sex-negative prudes that may have only been useful in evil patriarchal capitalistic systems. Then all the kids will have loads of double plus good sex!
I mean, yeah, this is what they say/want, and it doesn't change anything about my comment on how this worldview violently clashes at a fundamental level with those who think, "It is trivial that children cannot consent."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link