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 circumcised, and on the balance wish that I were not. I support routine infant circumcision.

The foreskin has functions

None that preclude a healthy, productive, satisfying life in its absence. "but it would be so much better if they still had it" is not a persuasive argument to me.

Bad for the infant's brain due to inadequate aenesthesia

I do not believe you can demonstrate a significant difference in population-level outcomes.

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

These are extremely rare. Many cultural practices involve rare risks, many of them significantly worse than these.

Here's my question for you: There is a religion with deep roots in our society that considers male infant circumcision to be an integral part of their religious practice, a literal command from God. If circumcision were banned, how should these people respond, in your view?

These are extremely rare

The rate of serious problems is debated. For instance, Intactivists say stuff like this

"Study design has an effect on the estimation of complication rates. Prospective studies, in which complications are tracked going forward from the circumcision via follow-up examinations, theoretically should capture the incidence of complications most accurately.[11] On the other hand, retrospective studies typically rely on a review of patient charts, a form of data that was recorded for a purpose other than research. Inaccuracies in the medical record (e.g. the not uncommon possibility that the complication was not charted in the first place) tend to lead to underestimation of complication incidence.[12] Even less reliable are retrospective database studies which can only capture events that have had an actual diagnostic or procedure code listed upon discharge.[E.g. 13] It has been estimated that database studies may miss up to 90-95% of complications.[14]"

I do not believe you can demonstrate a significant difference in population-level outcomes.

There are some studies showing a significant difference. Here's a list:

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/psychological-impact/

Autism is 5 times more prevalent in the United States than in Europe, some people think MGM might have something to do with it.

We used to perform other surgeries on babies without anesthetic, do you think that had a long term effect on their psychologies? From Wikipedia: "It is now accepted that the neonate responds more extensively to pain than the adult does, and that exposure to severe pain, without adequate treatment, can have long-term consequences." Do you think science is just generally wrong about this? It seems to me like the idea that torturing babies has long term psychological consequences is just obviously what we should predict based on priors. Are you really skeptical?

There are a lot of Jews who do a religious ritual called the Brit Shalom instead. Religions give up stuff all the time; I think the transition would be easier than you imagine. What percentage of Mormons still practice polygamy? Catholics no longer say that people who commit suicide go to hell. Etc etc etc.