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 -
A speedy decapitation is the least barbaric method I can conceive of. Reasonable attached heads may differ. It is quick, relatively painless, and inexpensive. There have already been some higher tech forms of decapitation that developed over the centuries, like the guillotine. I would rather trust a well-designed instrument of physical decapitation than a doctor’s lethal injection that is liable to all sorts of errors. Something also seems wrong to me about filling a human with foreign chemicals before his death. What I find pleasing is relevant because the post considers, essentially, the optimal way to treat death. So what is aesthetically preferable matters. Others will have their own aesthetic preference, but it can’t be ignored completely — how many people are against “dying before SHTF” because of the gross culture surrounding it? The word “euthanasia”, the doctor, the injection, the hospital room… this is so displeasing that it actually biases us against a pretty reasonable argument.
Skydiving without a parachute has always been my preferred autoeuthanistic endeavor, though as a Christian I am honor-bound never to do such.
Did some looking at the early church and I’ve come away with a different interpretation
Tertullian is considered the father of western theology and he writes
So at least two major Christian thinkers had an approximately utilitarian view of suicide, namely that is it virtuous when the Good it accomplishes his greater than the bad it effects. And I don’t think it is too hard to defend “utilitarian suicide” from a Christian schema generally. It’s an acknowledgment that we belong to God and that God wishes us to love each other; it’s an act of love to others that we die before we cause immense pain; it acknowledges death; it acknowledges that a virtuous life matters more than clinging to years; and so on.
I’m an individualist American, an objectivist libertarian, and well versed in Western mental health models. This informs my Christianity that I should strive for health as one of my highest utility functions, and suicide outside of martyrdom is one of the unhealthiest acts I can perform.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nothing against your aesthetic but it's not my aesthetic. I mean, it is metal and badass, for sure, but I'd prefer psychedelics in a relaxing bed amongst family as my body naturally gives out if it must die this millennium.
You're right that the current legally permissible aesthetic is insufficient for everyone. But your aesthetic is also insufficient for everyone. If we want this to work for more people we should broaden the permissible aesthetics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link