site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's talk about infant male circumcision. Common in the United States, considered beastly in most European countries. But they don't spend much time criticizing the United States about it, perhaps due to fear of being called anti-semitic.

Reasons not to do it:

The foreskin has functions

Bad for the infant's brain due to inadequate aenesthesia

Complications ranging from meatal stenosis to more grisly and life-changing outcomes

Etc etc

Anyway, besides just introducing a topic I believe is underdiscussed both on the Motte and in general, my questions are this:

How do you rate the importance of this issue relative to commonly discussed culture war stuff? If it is true that circumcision is a serious violation akin to rape, then it seems very very important.

and

Does anyone on this board support routine infant circumcision, or is this thread just going to be full of a lot of devil's advocate stuff?

I am strongly opposed to all cosmetic surgical alterations of a child's genitalia. At least with gender reassignment surgery there's an argument to be made that by modifying a teenager's genitalia you're alleviating their emotional distress. We can debate the efficacy of the method for attenuating distress until the cows come home, but at least the method itself is actually defended on utilitarian grounds.

The same cannot be said of circumcision (male or female), which is justified on the basis of tradition and religious ritual alone. (Or occasionally with the explicit aim of attenuating sexual sensitivity and thereby reducing an individual's quality of life).

The same can, and often is, said of circumcision though: if circumcision is traditional in your culture, then not getting circumcised will make you different. Being different often causes emotional distress, both due to internal feelings of not fitting in and external harassment.

This is something that puzzles me. My uncut friends never expressed that they felt any angst or emotional distress about being uncircumcised growing up. One of them even went to a school district where a lot of the student body was Jewish, and he was never harassed about the state of his genitalia. All of them had healthy dating lives and most are now married with the intention of keeping their kids uncut. At my school I also remember this being a non-issue. No one's really scrutinizing dicks in the locker room.

Is it really so common for people to be harassed over whether or not they're circumcised?

Between feelings of not fitting in and harassment, I'd personally say the former is more common. On the harassment front, the majority of the women I've had sexual experiences with commented negatively on the fact that I was uncut, viewing it as unclean. On the not fitting in front, the biggest challenge isn't so much the circumcision itself as the cognitive dissonance with other issues. For instance, seeing friends take seriously feminist arguments that men expressing preferences for shaved genital hair is wrong while knowing they see no issue with women expressing preferences for circumcised penises.

What about penis inspection days?

Speak plainly and with effort, please.

It's a joke/meme.