"What other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their own business" is a bad argument for sexual tolerance, because it's not true and has never been true. We obviously care a shit-ton about other people's sex lives and always have.
-
Show this thread
-
(CW frank discussion of sex and nonconsent)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
People care about whether other people are engaging in unethical behavior, for lots of reasons, but one is because we care about each other. The important caveat "...as long as it's between consenting adults" points clearly to this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
If you think a certain sexual behavior is unethical / hurtful, it's normal for you to care whether other people engage in it, whether that behavior is homosexuality, kink, rape, pedophilia, whatever. Sex has always been a key ethical concern.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
That is: if you think it's your business whether other people engage in rape or pedophilia, then you've already conceded that in general you think it's your business what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The privacy argument deflects from the uncomfortable heart of the matter, which is: we don't agree about ethics (in this case sexual ethics), and moreover we don't have a shared cultural mechanism for coming to agreement about ethics.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Some people implicitly seem to want consent to be a foundation for ethics. This is pointing in a good direction, but consent as it stands today cannot bear this weight. There is so much murky territory waiting in the question of what it means to "really consent" to things.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @QiaochuYuan
1/ It's a core idea in modern liberalism, which aims to have many people of different beliefs live together in harmony: ethical beliefs are personal matters, not to be inflicted on others, because people should be *free* to live as they want
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FateOfTwist_ @QiaochuYuan
2/ the main issue is that this is itself an ethic, one which puts individual liberty above all else. Something is wrong of it infringes on the liberties of someone else. Hate speech is wrong because limiting it doesn't constrain as much as the speech itself does.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I think you're implying this, but to make it explicit: this is unworkable. Individualism is making people lonely, atomized, and miserable. Doesn't solve the hard problem of how to relate to others. Presumes a level of independence from others that doesn't exist.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.