Straightbanana

Rape is rooted in nature, not culture.

The case for "rape culture" starts from the fact that rape is more widespread and therefore less shocking than we might like to think.

But then blames Western culture, when it's actually a fact about human nature.

Chimpanzees rape. The evolutionary imperative to reproduce, as experienced by the male of the species, does not require the female to be willing. And humans are closer to chimps than we like to think.

All societies struggle to channel the physical and sexual energies of young men into socially useful or at least harmless channels. In many historical cultures, the reward for a successful warrior is his pick of the enemy's women.

Western culture, influenced by Christianity, traditionally sought to overcome the worst aspects of human nature.

Chivalry is a product of Western culture. A man fully socialised into the tradition of Western culture despises rapists.

But traditional culture is under attack from the cult of "if it feels good, do it" and the false belief that people are basically good if only they could be freed from the oppression of tradition.

It's more complicated than that, of course. Feminism is itself a product of Western culture, ..

As long as there is a demand for rented accommodation, landlords provide a useful function. No landlords means no renting.

I think there are perhaps 3 conditions for being a good landlord:

A good landlord is a legitimately-wealthy person who increases the supply of accommodation (e.g. by buying up a semi-derelict building and converting it into one or more habitable dwellings for rent Or by renting out part of a building that would otherwise remain vacant, such as an unused flat above a shop).

A good landlord asks reasonable contract terms and abides by the agreed terms of the contract. (E.g. keeps the property in good repair).

A good landlord makes only a modest profit on his time, effort and capital employed.

(Of course these conditions apply equally to the state as a potential landlord. Principles apply to everyone).

If you agree with me that any of these expresses a real moral difference between good and bad landlords then good landlords can in principle exist.

There's objective physical reality upon which we overlay a subjective social world of meaning.

If you see a mirage in the desert, the physical reality is that there's no water there. You may die as a result - illusory perceived water will not sustain your life.

But if you return to a social setting, you may be perceived as a hero for surviving the desert or a crazy fool for going there. And being crazy or a hero consists entirely in being perceived as such.

If "enlightened despotism" refers to a system of government, then presumably it contains some mechanism for ensuring that each successive despot is in fact enlightened. In which case comparing with a democratic system is fair.

If on the other hand "enlightened despotism" means only a happy phase in a tyrannical system where by sheer chance the current tyrant happens to be enlightened, then to say that it's better while it lasts - comparing the phase with a typical or happy phase of democratic government - is a valid proposition.

But comparing a phase with a system and then preferring the system because it's a system seems like an empty proposition. Apples and pears...