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 -
@SSCReader argued the following in the context of a discussion here on the palpable divergence of political views between young men and women, especially young single men and young single women in the US and the West in general a few months ago (emphasis mine):
Lots of things are without historical precedent. It doesn't mean they are actually problems. It's a self correcting issue. Either through assortative mating, or in people who won't reach out across the aisle simply not having relationships while others will find their desires for companionship overcome their political biases, or they don't and simply don't pass on their genetics. There is nothing that needs to be done, a new balance will be found.
In light of the online gender war apparently gaining fresh momentum in the wake of Kamala's election defeat, with a bunch of leftist women declaring support for importing the South Korean 4B Movement to the US and proclaiming a sex strike, and commentators proclaiming toxic male voters to be the decisive electoral force behind Trump etc., and all of this being rather unlikely to just die down with the passing of time, I'm curious if he(?) still holds this view unironically and confidently. To be clear, when he says there's no need to do anything, I'm assuming he doesn't simply mean 'the government shouldn't intervene', I'm also assuming he wouldn't say that the media should try deradicalizing angry right-wing single men, or that moderate feminists should not sympathize with the 4B LARPers.
Right?
I don't understand the distinction between working on having your own kids versus advocating for policies that'd make it easier for you and yours to have more kids. Surely you'd advocate for a raise to help pay for your own kids? How about for lower taxes at a municipal level? How about per-kid payments at a federal level?
I agree that individual returns to societal-level advocacy are usually small, but again I don't understand where you draw then line between "advocacy for strong families" versus "Attempting to optimize policies for the societal production of kids".
If having kids is so central, then why spend time trying to get market value for your labor, instead of spending that time having more kids?
Something bad being common doesn't make it OK - it makes it scarier! And both of these things increase the chance that your descendants won't be able to have as many kids as they otherwise would.
I agree that setting the precedent of meddling with family formation is a bad one. I'm just saying that I don't understand what your advice looks like in practice. If my local municipality proposes subsidizing building a daycare, how do you vote?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link