news
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
view the rest of the comments
OK, so I'm basically sympathetic to this position, but we have to recognize that when we create a positive law like this, it's tricky. Part of what makes a good positive law is a clear, obvious, simple line. As an example: 18 (or any specific number) as age of consent. Why is it good? It's clear, obvious, and simple. As much as libertarians do the "BUT WHAT ABOUT 17 years and 364 DAYS" cope, the fact is, we have decided upon a line as a society and thus we (somewhat arbitrarily - one could make arguments for 20, or 21 as more acceptable!) have decided 18 years is that line. "Age ain't nothing but a number" - yes, but you have to abide by the law you perverts.
I don't know what the "clear simple and obvious" here is. After all, as you note, there's nothing inherently wrong with wearing school uniforms for sexual acts among two consenting adults. Similarly, there's nothing inherently right about a 40 year old having sex with an 18 year old. However, in the latter, it's a clear legal issue (disgusting morality aside). Partner over 18, not illegal, partner under 18, gulag. While I do like the addition of "big platforms" here, I just don't know what the proper line looks like. Are clothes that seem schoolgirl-ish unacceptable (so aping a uniform but not actually using a uniform)? It's just hard to police, legally speaking.
I want to make it totally clear: I don't think that "over 18" magically absolves people of immoral behavior. Power dynamics and age dynamics are a thing, but we can't as a society police this stuff (as much as I'd love to). Similarly, I don't think that "barely legal" material is somehow worth defending in the particular, rather, understanding what an effective ban looks like matters here. Thus, we have to use a clear demarcation that is arbitrary and brightly colored. I don't know what that looks like w/r/t the content of pornography, beyond the participation of underage parties being illegal/no snuff films/no scenarios that claim to represent illegal acts (so here, you can't "say" the actress is 16 even when actually of age - which remains a very clear and obvious line).
That's not the case in all countries, in Spain the age of consent is 16, but can be less if there are proximity in degree of maturity and age.
I'm not aware that this model has created problems, and it's better than the old law (13 the age of consent).
13 is depraved.
I know some states have 16 as age of consent but I really think some push towards 18 as a global standard would do a lot of good. It's not perfect but a 16 year old is a lot more vulnerable since they're still a minor under the law. It doesn't magically make you an "adult" at 18 but having the protections of adulthood, such as they are I think is an important legal distinction.
The US has similar laws to what you describe as well (Romeo and Juliet laws) so that if two underage ppl (16 and 17 for instance) don't become criminal when one turns 18. I should say it's actually important to have those as well, because otherwise parents can use the law against their kids if they don't approve of who the date (eg. a gay kid who is 16 dates a 17 year old and after the partner turns 18 the parents could prosecute the partner w/o these carve outs).
Importantly though, this doesn't protect some 23 year old creeping on underage girls, and rightly so.
Ultimately I think a standard 19 or 20 for all adulthood (drink, smoke, sex, vote, drugs) would make the most sense, but I recognize some people think a 16 year old is old enough to consent. I just think the power dynamics there are disgusting
my fear is that, by increasing the age of consent too much will legitimize older people to hook up with young teenagers. Ex. Let's say, for absurd, that we raise the age of consent to 25. This means that the law will consider a 24 years old and a 14 years old equally incapable of giving consent, thinking and acting for themselves etc
Yeah that's why unfortunately it's ultimately fairly arbitrary. All but the biggest sickos probably see somewhere between 16-20 as the "right" age for sexual consent. However, as you note, lumping people who are "too old' under minority is also an issue. I do think consolidating things (versus different ages for sex drugs and rock and roll) would have a bit of a useful effect though.
It is arbitrary man. We can't even state that 16 years old is too much or not enough because it depends on the culture. We can't even use the argument about people teenagers not being 100% cerebrally developed since recent studies proved that we are not until our mid 30s, but I don't think a 25 years old isn't able to consent.