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 -
Sam Altman and his husband had a kid.
Let me say outright I wish him, him, and the child well. Certainly growing up in a wealthy family affords a child many benefits that would not be had without that wealth, so good for the kid. Let me also say I am, as a person tangentially involved in medicine and medical science, not adamantly opposed to IVF, personally, though admittedly I have not spent a lot of time poring over the moral aspects of it. It seems like one of those things that generally contributes toward the good, inasmuch as it is creative, in the most literal sense of the word, and not destructive. My mind might be changed by a persuasive argument.
What irks me though, is that in the linked article there is no mention whatsoever of the mother of this child, the woman who carried the child in her womb, from whose egg the child generated (whether you view this as the mother or not is of course up to you.) It is as if the two men just somehow had a child, as if that is the most natural thing in the world, and there should be no questioning of it by anyone for to do so would be, I don't know, wrong or backward-ass.
Yet here I am, wondering. Should there not be at least a rhetorical nod toward the woman, a phrase in some sentence saying that the child was brought into the world via gestational surrogacy--a good way to introduce the term into people's vocabulary, the regular working men and women among us who may have never thought of the term. Yet there is nothing. Nada y pues nada. Can anyone steelman this beyond the assertion that it is a required newspeak in our Brave New World?
If I were to be dramatic, I'd say a woman has been literally erased here-- a maternal unpersoning. I know at least one woman (white, American) who "had" a child via gestational surrogacy--she is now both divorced and living about 4,800 miles (7,725 km) apart from her daughter. Life's a bitch. I never outright asked her about the woman who carried the child to term, though I know that this was a so-called "commercial surrogacy" and the woman who did carry the child was from India, probably without much financial means, and the whole affair was generally unpalatable to me. But I loved the (egg) mother as a sister, though she is unrelated to me, and still do, though she is a little nuts.
But Altman and Mulherin are both men, and thus the egg came from neither of them. I don't know, I just wish the goddam media would throw me a bone sometimes.
Surrogacy is unpalatable, it is only legal because users of surrogates are mostly wealthy and influential. Should it be illegal? I’m less certain there. Plenty of unethical things aren’t illegal.
I don't find it unpalatable in the least, and it would be a stretch to call me wealthy or influential. I'm not even a likely customer.
I find the instinctive flinch away from it as sheer stupidity, especially when countries like India now ban surrogacy for pay.
I look to such people, and think: You're telling me that it's legal and widely accepted for someone to work in a sweatshop making textiles for a year and only maybe make a few thousand dollars at best, and them having to undergo pregnancy for 9 months for potentially several dozen times the sum is somehow worse!
We all sell our bodies and limited time under the sun to make ends meet. And we all pay an emotional toll for it, unless you're lucky enough to have a job that you'd do for free. The only question is if you're being paid enough to make that worth your while, and a childless couple offering ~$50k to poor woman in the Third World represents a sum that will set up both her and her future children for life.
I contend that it is neither unethical nor illegal in the least, and that the world would be a much better place if people didn't let their innate disgust reactions or severely miscalibrated notions of fairness lead them around by the nose.
I've never had an employer or customer put something inside me for even a moment, let alone nine months.
I wouldn't do my current job for free. But I also enjoy talking about it - and find no shame it doing so - with my friends, family, and other acquaintances. Sometimes I have stressful days, but I don't end every day or week thinking, "A what a fucking emotional toll I had to pay!" In fact, I'm quite excited about my job because it lets me do all these other cool things with friends and families - and I feel like I really am creating some tangible value on a day to day basis.
And this matters why? What qualitative difference does it make? Has your employer ever needed you to put in earphones? Or go through a health checkup?
If you don't like the terms and conditions, don't sign the contract.
Jobs vary, from the fulfilling to drudgery, from the stressful, to the relaxed. Mine certainly has its ups and downs, and it isn't all things I currently do for free online if someone were to politely ask. Getting pregnant and making $50k in 9 months strikes me as a much better deal than having to break your back laboring for the same sum, or have it represent life-time earnings, as would be the case in the Third World for many surrogates.
Someone having to work at McDonald's after their PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving failed to net them the jobs they dreamed of is obviously unhappy about it, and probably embarrassed to disclose it to friends and family. There are many low prestige jobs out there. Some of them even pay a premium to account for the fact it's not most people's first choice.
There is a categorical difference between an employer requesting you put in ear phones or get a health check up (both of which you can refuse) and agreeing upon incubating a human inside of you for nine months in order to receive payment. If you're saying "No, it's just a difference in degree" then we have an intractable disagreement.
Regarding job quality and relative value, my response was when you asserted "we all pay an emotional toll" - which I think is incorrect. Some people do, absolutely. All of us do not.
I can't quite follow your thread on McDonalds PhDs etc. It seems to me your argument is roughly "find the best mix of compensation / perceived labor / emotional stress" and go from there. Valid enough, but I'd argue there are jobs that may in fact be pay well, be low in labor requirements, and have limited emotional stress that you shouldn't take - drug dealer, pornstar etc. (although, I'd also argue that those "jobs" specifically have high emotional stress - those that do not feel emotional stress in those "jobs" are perhaps demonstrating dissociative or anti-social mental states)
I mean, outside of obvious coercion and indentured servitude, the surrogates can say no. I'm perfectly fine with coercion being illegal, I just don't think the usual argument that the difference in wealthy is necessarily coercive is worth a damn. I don't have a womb, but for the typical sum quoted, I would say I'd at least be interested.
Let's say you have a physically active job, and you've got clapped out knees. When you protest at being assigned field work, I see no reason why the employer can't ask you to get surgery to fix your knees, if a desk job is not a mutually acceptable option. You have the right to refuse, and find another job. That is, technically, something being put inside you for the purposes of work. At any rate, I don't see the qualitative difference between something in or outside you, as long as you agree to 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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link