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 just discovered ex-gay twitter. I personally agree with their viewpoint that a lot of gays would be happier be heterosexually married with the occasional gay experience. Mostly I just think most men even gay have naturally desires for a family and that’s best in a heterosexual relationship. And most gays don’t want to do the mundane women work of watching little kids but would rather be the more aloof father that does the male roles. You can put me in that camp that we are an evolved species with deeply rooted programming on what leads us to a happy life. And homosexuality to me seems like a couple of your genes are off that may individually have benefits but combined turned your gay, but the vast majority of your genetic programming is still happier in traditional heterosexual relationships. As a society we have decided that a small bit of a person their sexuality should dominate the totality of that person.
Culture war wise these views are far outside of appropriate viewpoints today. Anyway here’s the articles and twitter threads on the movement. Even for someone with a belief that society should be more libertarian I still think our culture has gone wrong and promoted the old ways is better for the species just not by government force.
https://www.piratewires.com/p/ex-gay-twitter
https://twitter.com/piratewires/status/1584941608688320512?s=46&t=Dc1wiLnAbZQuf1ZEsEPebA
I have a similar proposition for women: regardless of sexual preferences, many women interested in raising a family would be happier in a same-sex marriage with another woman.
Hear me out.
There are a lot of women in US who want both children and a career. If you are such a woman, it's not that difficult to find another woman with similar goals. If the two of you get along as BFFs, why not get married? If neither of you are into women sexually, that makes the arrangement even more stable: there will be no miscommunication on expectations of sexual intimacy between the spouses.
If both of you want your own biological children, you can plan out a pregnancy schedule. If one of you is way more into pregnancy than the other, that's cool too. The studs could be long-term boyfriends, male friends-with-benefits, or sperm-bank donors. The advantage of studding with long-term boyfriend is that he's even likely to pitch in financially for the child.
For male role models, bring into the fold male friends you actually admire, as opposed to those you find hot. Could be your brothers or male cousins, could be the baby-daddies, could be close male friends.
There are plenty of cultures where mothers (and grandmothers) are the stable center of the family and fathers are on the periphery. Same-sex marriage between two women interested in raising a family mirrors such an arrangement.
You would lose the father figure which some may not care about and few guys going to spend a lot of time on his non-biological kids.
This idea only works for women who want to upgrade the genetic profile of their children while having an absentee father like Musk.
Yes, the father figure would be less likely in such an arrangement. On the plus side, it increases the odds of an uncle figure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link