Theendoftheline wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2026 12:18 am
PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2026 11:48 pm
I think MAPs and the concept of "minors" play a function in directing discourse, i.e. if a person is a minor you moderate your writing, if a person is an adult MAP then they're fair game.
We've got to get past this Youtube Drama level of politics. Everyone has seen how insincere and pointless it is to cry on camera for your popular audience, why are we still taking people like the hosts of Breaking points seriously?
What cause it? social media? feminism?, group think and not want to stand out against modern norms? All of the above?
Youtube Drama is a great term that describes how normies behave about the topic where they say "BLANK IS A MINOR", in a serious tone. as if the State's legal definition of the number 18 is suppose to carry grave weight in a conversation. To me its just a spook that I choose not to let haunt me but to a normie it is a serious social norm violation that just be apologized for.
As for what causes it, its many factors. But one of them has to do with how natural selection wired us. Our brains are meant to replicate ideas to help us socially fit in and ideas of high cultural concern replicate faster. Feminism and Qanon are ideas in the culture, and human brains are designed to replicate ideas in the culture to maximize social reward. Just as catchy music and memes (like 67) becomes popular and disseminates in the culture so do ideas about political views, especially if they are simple and nuanceless. Complex ideas also end up being reduced into simple narratives and catch phrases.
If the ideas are about "child harm" the ideas will spread faster with urgent concern regardless if they're is real harm or bullshit, and normies will show hostility to those who reject it just like qanon crowd says "you are with us or against us". in fighting the respected non-existent satanic pedos.
Evolutionary models show evidence that the strategy of "copy the majority" (conformity) is often more successful at adapting than trial and error learning (the individualism route). That's memematics in work , feminist ideas run their course in the culture and get widely accepted especially if they are framed as advanced morality and child protection.
If we really want to look deeper on feminism then the next question to ask is, Is why do secular feminist of today and religious feminist of the past who both supported the number 18 as an AoC use different structure to justify it? Why are they arguing from different reasons that both would consider invalid?
While nuance exist on child protection on both ends.
A feminist in 1925 would say 18 as the AoC is to keep women of the church pure to avoid the sin of prostitution so they can make a better choice at finding a husband for life long marriage. Back in 1920s the feminist had to defend their position.
A feminist in 2025 would say the AoC of 18 is to protect children from hard and exploitive men. Today they can accuse you of being pro rapist and pro predator if you disagree or even add nuance on late stage adolescence.
That is what we can think about. Also lastly the "BRO HES A MINOR THATS DISGUSTING" part can be explained away with research on what disgust really is.
