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 -
I have a very smart friend who is also a talented decoupler, who could easily be a very quality contributer here if dealing with Culture War issues didn't make him bleed from the eyes. He is literally the only person I know whose Facebook posts about politics did not make me lose respect for him. Over the years, we have had a number of conversations about contentious CW topics that flirted with the border of Adversarial Collaboration, long detailed discussions handled with fairness, civility, and mutual respect.
Until the topic of student loan forgiveness came up. That discussion was unusually heated. He seemed almost frantic, heated about PPP loan forgiveness hypocrites and just not giving the expected degree of decoupled consideration for arguments about how the loan forgiveness was an overall terrible policy. He seemed personally invested, felt personally attacked, in a way he hadn't in conversations about abortion or gun control.
The thing is, my friend is a teacher. Education is a big factor in his identity. He has taught maybe a thousand students who might benefit from the forgiveness plan. Attacks on that plan are an attack on his class identity. Politics is the mind-killer, and it is a sad fact that a rationalist's Art is most likely to abandon him when he needs it most (or, rather, he will fail the Art). And so my arguments sparked an uncontrolled emotional response that was missing from other, less identity-laden topics.
The second thing is, I've been on the other side of that coin, back when we had our multi-day deep dive into the gun control literature. Gun control hits me emotionally as an attack on my class identity. When I hear a gun control proposal, before I hear a single specific detail or spend a second considering merits, some lizard part of my brain interprets it as "Fuck you, your father, your father's father, and your father's father's father". (Does the word "father" still mean anything to you?) I've begged off having spontaneous discussions about it in person, even with close family, because I don't want to spike myself into rage and other unpleasant feelings. During that deep dive, my excellent friend was so calm, fair and rational that he overrode that concern, and I ended up learning a lot and having a great time.
And I'm thinking about this now, because I notice a similar reaction to the trans discussion downthread. The idea that my children might be brainwashed into taking evolutionarily self-destructive choices, and I can't even attempt to oppose it without facing the full wrath of the modern State, kindles a pre-rational, animal panic/fury response. I find myself getting heated to an unusual degree just thinking about it. I don't think I'm particularly "anti-trans". I was willing to be accepting two decades ago, when I first learned it was even a thing. But something about the thought that the phenomenon might hit my kids triggers an atavistic survival instinct. That reaction doesn't trigger when I consider my son dressing like David Bowie, or my daughter playing sports. It doesn't happen when a peer goes trans. It triggers at the thought of one of the two corporeal incarnations of my DNA and memes getting sucked into a fraught psychological memeplex, and particularly at the thought of them being medically sterilized.
Imagine an alternate world where any time a kid expressed suicidal ideation, government employees would firmly nudge them towards euthanasia, and would jail you as a parent for protesting. That's roughly the level of emotional hit - some part of me considers this an existential threat.
But what are the odds? 0.3%? That's not that much worse than the odds of childhood cancer, or other kind of unexpected death that a healthy mind doesn't overmuch worry about, and deals with gracefully if it comes. But now it's apparently something more like nearly 2%? That hits me in the Papa-Bear-Who-Wants-Grandkids-In-Space-Forever. And it seems very likely that a lot of that is social contagion or could otherwise be wildly reduced with a minimal degree of skepticism towards youth fads.
So, two points. One, I think it might behoove activist types (assuming we're not in pure conflict theory) to try to notice when one of their pushes is hitting this sort of reaction and figure out a path to undermine or alleviate it.
Secondly, a question for the community: What gets you fiercely activated, beyond what you can rationally justify? What CW issues feels like molten hot war to the hilt, where your instincts fight to throw aside all reason and charity? Any thoughts about why?
Not the thrust of the comment I know, but I'd be curious if you really think this is at the root of your reaction. I mean, would you react in the exact same way if your kid was in some other way rendered unable to have kids themselves, like they were gay or got a vasectomy once they were an adult?
Also;
I think we're tipping in hysteria pretty clearly here.
I would be pretty upset if my kids were childfree. I wouldn't try to coerce them away from that decision, but I would feel like I had failed on some level, or that society had failed them. Family formation is a pretty core value for me. Is that wrong?
I don't think it's morally wrong, but I think it's certainly irrational to think that. It's their free choice, and doesn't represent a moral failing (on your part or theirs) any more than if you had a family business and none of the children wanted to take it over as they got older.
To be honest, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can want children, but that's just something I have to accept as "different people are wired differently". IMO children are a burden, not a blessing, and the prevalent veneration of parenthood in society strikes me roughly similar to if people considered it super important to have a guy come around to punch you in the stomach once or twice every day.
Well unfortunately I don't have a family business to pass on to them, but if I did I would also be pretty upset if they didn't want to take it over as they got older. And I wish my parents had a family business to pass to me - ideally one that they would be mad if I didn't take over lol
Well they're definitely a burden, but can't they be both? I tend to think most valuable things are obligations.
Fair enough. Clearly wiring has a lot to do with it. I'm probably wired to have a strong desire to have children.
But I also have good feeling about family that aren't just based on wiring. My fondest memories are oriented around family. I have incredibly positive memories that are focused on older and younger family. So I have in my brain a positive association with being the older family member getting to introduce the younger to the world and play with them. And also a desire to fill that positive roll that older family members filled for me. There are burdens involved but my general feeling around family is very warm. Those were always fulfilling relationships for me.
I think most of the good things in life are warm, fulfilling burdens. What do you think is valuable to do that is not a burden?
I think you make an interesting point about things having a dual nature, but I can't think of anything where I'd characterize it as a burden. For example, marriage entails certain obligations on both parties: I have to take care of my wife, I can't go chasing other women, things like that. But none of those things is a burden to me. At most, when we argue I am frustrated in the moment and put it aside for love. And of course there are lots and lots of upsides to marriage. We take care of each other in times of weakness, having a companion is really good, having sex is fun, all that.
Conversely, I find the difficult parts of dealing with children to be far worse in magnitude. Like, just the sound of hearing a child throwing a temper tantrum is like fingernails on chalkboard to me and far worse than anything I have to cope with in marriage. And you have to put up with that a lot as a parent, because children take years and years to learn to properly cope with minor situations. You also have to deal with all sorts of things like having to literally wipe your child's ass, etc etc. And all of that without really having the copious upsides that marriage has. Kids can be fun but it takes years of slogging through shitty un-fun times to get there, and while they may be there for you when you're older that isn't really something you can (or should) bank on happening.
To me, the far superior path to be around kids is to be the cool uncle. I have two nephews (3 and 6), I try to make sure I'm in their lives, and I do enjoy seeing them. But when my nephew starts throwing a temper tantrum because he's 3 and that's how he rolls at that age, I don't have to deal with it - I can just grit my teeth and power through with ignoring it. Or if one of my nephews ever asks me something awkward like "where do babies come from", I can dodge lol. I love being an uncle, but I would definitely not want to have children of my own.
I think that's mostly a semantic difference in defining burden. I was trying to interpret burden in a more positive way, essentially the same as obligation, which is why I introduced that word.
If by burden you just mean a bad obligation, then by definition that is bad. I was thinking more like a backpack full of supplies on a hike - a heavy load. Something you have to expend energy to carry, but probably for a good reason not a bad one. Doing hard things for rewarding reasons is the best thing in life.
But the rest of what you said shows that it REALLY is a wiring difference between us. So there isn't really any interesting convo to have with me arguing that kids are a good investment. Your feelings about kids truly are fundamentally different from me on a base level.
Even when kids are throwing tantrums it doesn't bother me that much. I enjoy working with kids even when they are being very difficult. If it fundamentally makes you that uncomfortable, you're right, kids would be a huge net negative.
What about the family business concept? Businesses don't throw tantrums but you imply you'd resent having that thrust on you as well.
I actually did turn down the family business, though it wasn't something my parents ever pressed upon me. I grew up on a farm, and I have no doubt that my parents would've loved it if I had decided I wanted to be a farmer and took over the business from them. But my interests lay elsewhere, as did my other siblings' interests. Thankfully, my parents never made it a big thing, they just understood farming wasn't for me and that's that. If they had really pressed the point, I believe you're correct that I would've resented it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nah I think building a family yourself has always been one of the most reliable ways to cultivate a true, sustained happiness. I guess I wouldn't know from personal experience, but it seems like pretty much the only way not to end up completely alone by age 60.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I find myself having a mild preference against them being gay for what seems to be this reason, but homosexuality is less of an obstacle for having biokids these days. Similarly, I'd be rather annoyed if they both went childfree, but in that situation I can consider context or make the pitch for why kids are worthwhile and then respect the decision of reasoned adults.
The downthread topic that sparked this was a proposed bill to take kids away from parents who expressed resistance or skepticism. Take that threat entirely off the table, and ensure that I get to make my own determination on how sincere/serious the gender-nonconformity is while my kids are minors, and almost all of the heated goes away.
What bill? I hope you're not referring to SB107 because that isn't what that did.
Here's the link.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In Canada it is explicitly illegal to question your child regarding anything trans. If the local school commissar gets their claws in them, there is no recourse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link