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 -
This is a special place.
If you can't decouple your sense of moral outrage at bad acts from a discussion over what words mean, you're going to have a real bad time on this forum. My position here isn't even that spicy. We have a guy who literally argues for pedophilia being OK, we have people who think that the Jews are to blame for everything, etc. Saying "I think x act is immoral but it doesn't fall under the definition of y" doesn't even register compare to some of the arguments here.
More options
Context Copy link
...Speak plainly. What's your actual disagreement with the above?
If someone takes a lot of drugs, consensually or otherwise, that doesn't open the door to "sexing" up their passed out body. Again...jesus christ.
I read it as, "if they are intoxicated, but can still consent, having sex with them isn't rape", not "if they consent to being drugged into unconsciousness but not to sex, you can have sex with them when they're unconscious and it isn't rape." If the latter is their intended meaning, I share your horror. If the former, would you agree that it's an unobjectionable statement?
Why split hairs. Just don't.
drawing a distinction between "intoxicated but conscious and aware" and "unconscious" is not splitting hairs. The two states are distinct, which is presumably why you have chosen to frame the discussion as being about the latter.
If your argument is that intoxication invalidates consent even if the intoxicated person is conscious and apparently aware, say that. If your argument is that intoxication does not invalidate consent unless the person's awareness is compromised, say that. Be clear about the nature of your disagreement, rather than simply emoting. At the moment, it's not clear there even is a disagreement here, as opposed to a misunderstanding on your part.
Even having this conversation is a bad sign. Why would you need to worry about such distinctions?
This didn't start from a place of having 2 glasses of wine with dinner.
You're retreating to the motte after proposing the bailey. Classic stuff.
Okay, as it happens, I was about to mod you before @FCfromSSC did, because you're being obnoxious, low-effort and sneering throughout this thread.
You can argue the defensible position "We should have strict rules of consent which preclude having sex with people who are under the influence." You cannot imply that anyone who disagrees with you thinks it's okay to rape someone who's passed-out drunk. That is arguing in bad faith, and that is what I will warn you not to do.
More options
Context Copy link
Hey. Please stop backseat moderating.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't need to worry about it at all. I'm married, I and my wife are strictly monogamous, and neither of us drink or take drugs.
Society needs to worry about it, because the current default norm is that intoxication does not invalidate consent if the person is still aware, and for better or worse much interaction between the sexes proceeds on this assumption. If you wish to change those rules, I for one am amenable to it, but we should be clear on what the new rules actually are, and how they're going to be enforced. a ban on alcohol anywhere people are going to hook up seems like an obvious first step.
I reject your claim that "even having this conversation is a bad sign". You can argue why in more detail if you like, but this is a space for discussion between opposing viewpoints, not a space for silencing views one disagrees with. If you find the idea that there might be a reasonable distinction between intoxication that nonetheless allows consent and incapacitation that invalidates it so repugnant that all you can do is performatively harrumph about it, then you are free to either keep your performative harrumphing to yourself or else find somewhere else to do it.
This is a warning, please heed it.
Mod hat to defend rape. Lol count me out then buddy. Holy shit. This whole place is polluted by your presence. If you want to ban me for this? I'll be proud to wear it. God damn!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link