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 -
People who choose to live in a certain way in accordance with their beliefs != People who lack fundamental human feelings
People who have urges to sin and resist them != People who lack urges
Gluttony is a sin. Someone who has no hunger, no urge to eat and no pleasure in food, is crippled and missing a fundamental human experience. A monk who chooses to live on a scanty diet of bread and water is making a choice for piety, a choice that is meaningless if he was born with a generic dysfunction that prevents him from feeling hunger or enjoying food.
Wrath is a sin. But someone who feels no anger, no urge to revenge when wronged, is missing a fundamental part of human experience. The nobility of choosing to turn the other cheek is meaningless if one simply lacks the neurons that fire that way for revenge.
So on and so forth to Lust.
I wouldn't say they are crippled since that implies they have a disability to live their life successfully. They might be missing a fundamentally human experience, but they are missing it in a good manner which will help them live a better life. Avoiding gluttony, wrath and excessive lust is good.
Notice your slip here, you've subconsiously moved the goalposts on yourself: excessive lust is bad. I agree! Excessive lust is bad, but some lust is necessary to human life, even if it exists only to be resisted! Someone who lacks any sexual desire is missing a gear.
Maybe, sometimes, having a genetic defect to lack any libido causes them to lead a better life along certain metrics, if not others. And there are very few armed robbers or murderers in wheelchairs, but being unable to walk is pretty much your textbook definition of a cripple. It would seem ridiculous to say that wheelchair bound folks are more moral because they don't commit violent crimes. And it would be obvious to say they are cripples, despite the fact that they're less likely to end their lives in prison.
So either you're proposing a new definition of cripple by which any possible moral benefit obviates the many clear limitations imposed.
Or given that you already copped to only excessive lust being bad, your concept of Asexuality is something more like, extant but weak sexual desire?
Yeah but not having lust isn't preventing them from having sex, asexuals don't lack the ability to do so. And even if they did, since many people live excellent lives after foregoing sex, I don't think they are missing out on something crucial. I don't see how they are a cripple. Maybe they wouldn't understand sexual desire in their fellow human beings as well, but I don't see any other negative effect.
I said excessive lust since gluttony is already the word for eating in excess. Not having hunger signals is not bad, people can still live a good life without feeling hungry. Also, I believe anger is bad in all amounts. I will say lust as an emotion is neutral in moderation. Saying excessive lust is bad doesn't imply that having no lust is bad.
I will also note that people who choose to live like monks, priests, nuns, etc. do everything in their capacity to train their mind to stop feeling lust in the first place (and also other emotions like wrath). And I believe that it does work, since brains are neuroplastic, habits are powerful and in my own experience I have almost eliminated anger as an emotion after trying. Even in the rare times you start experiencing the emotions you are avoiding, you learn to immediately notice it and let it go. I agree that if someone did not feel these emotions in the first place, then not acting upon them is not a moral virtue like it is to intentionally choose to resist and forego those emotions. Considering that people make it a goal to stop feeling lust and acting upon it and view that as a good outcome, I am not convinced that not feeling it at all makes someone a cripple.
People can still live a good life while living in a wheelchair, while being blind, while being deaf. Those are nonetheless core examples of cripples. Hell, one of the most successful businessmen in my small town has one arm. He's not substantively prevented from living a successful life on most metrics, but he is crippled. "Can live a good life" isn't a counterargument to being categorized as crippled. "Doesn't make them a bad person" isn't a counterargument to being categorized as crippled. "Might be less likely to commit some sins" isn't a counterargument to being categorized as crippled.
Perhaps they are mechanically capable of intercourse, but are they capable of fully committing and connecting erotically with another? Maybe they can force themselves to have sex, but can they ever want to make love?
I believe that there is more to erotic love as a human being than the mere mechanical process of penetration. And I believe that the inability to understand that is crippling emotionally. People who don't experience that are not experiencing the full range of human life.
I also disagree about anger. Williams Syndrome isn't any way to go through life.
I guess this is something we can agree to disagree on. I can understand that you see the inability to experience emotions as crippling, but I don't view it that way. To me, disability means lacking the ability to do something. For example, blind people can't see as well, deaf people can't hear as well. A person lacking an arm won't be able to do many tasks as well without external help or interventions. It just boils down to a semantic disagreement here. I don't view experiencing the full range of human emotions as something crucial either. It's a nice to have, but not necessary to achieve the things that are important in life.
But also, if you’re trying to describe disability in terms of mechanical action rather than experience, both of your first examples are about the inability to experience things most people can experience (inability to experience light, inability to experience sound).
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I don’t really see what you’re describing as a coherent rebuttal.
The inability to experience light and sound both severely affect one's ability to go about their life without obstacles and participate in society. That's why they are disabilities. If you are blind, you can't drive a car for example. It has especially been true historically, with modern technology and social accomodations many disabilities like lacking an arm are much less of a disability that before. Lacking sexual desire doesn't severely impede you life, if it does so at all. It's also a matter of severity rather than just inability. My vision is terrible without my spectacles for example, but even if I lack the ability to see properly and it would impede my life if I didn't have spectacles, I wouldn't consider it a disability because it isn't severe enough.
To add on, if lacking the ability to see light or hear sound was just flavor and didn't impede your life, then I wouldn't consider it a disability at all. For example, many people with synesthesia will describe their additional perceptions as deeply enriching and for some it would be fundamental to their human experience. However, I don't consider lacking synesthesia to be a disability. I wouldn't consider it a disability even if synesthesia was a majority trait and thus engrained in human culture, resulting in those without it being unable to understand and participate in core aspects of human culture.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What does this mean in context? When I say to my wife "Let's agree to disagree on [whether I bought the right range hood for our kitchen]" what I mean is something like "I want to eat dinner, make love, go the play we have tickets for tonight without arguing about [the range hood.]" I will totally argue with you about other things in other threads without bringing up asexuality! But in this thread right now, I'm going to keep poking, because I'm viscerally horrified at this:
I don't know how you draw a set of things that are Important in Life, that excludes everyone who is deaf or blind or in a wheelchair (our core definition of a cripple) but includes Asexuals (or I suppose people who are born unable to experience anger or hunger). Some subset of deaf/blind/wheelchair people live great lives, better than average, I'm sure quite a few better than mine, but on average it limits your experience of life to have those crippling limitations. The full range of human emotions and experiences is what is important in life! It is what is human. The saints and the sages are heroes because they struggled with their emotions. The Buddha, meditating under his tree and being tempted and threatened with women and with armies; what does that mean if he did not feel lust or the urge to battle and glory? Mahatma Gandhi sleeping chastely with women is nothing if he feels no desire that he can conquer. What is St. Augustine if he can't taste the pears? That's what makes their experience and their accomplishment human!
I feel like I'm trying to explain why seeing color is better than being colorblind.
I mean that we can agree that we have different meanings of what is considered a cripple. It's partly subjective how people decide what word means what, so I don't see what else we can gain from continuing this discussion. Also, what different people consider "basic to human functioning" would also be different and subjective to an extent. If it was less subjective, then I would have continued the discussion, but as of now I think I have a good understanding of your viewpoint and am unlikely to gain much more insight with additional discussion that would change my viewpoint.
Yeah, this is why I said we can agree to disagree. What different people value and how much they value something is fundamentally subjective. I also think seeing color is better than being colorblind, but I think having sexual desire is mostly a net neutral. I still don't think that seeing color, hearing sound, or having an arm is important enough that I would include them in a set of things that are the most important in life, or fundamental to the human experience. They are good to haves, and not having them would make you disabled because that's what disabled means. I can see why you would consider asexuality a disability if experiencing sexuality is so important to you, but it's not that important to me so plus I don't think it restricts people from participating in society or provides severe hinderances to living their life in a way that I would say is necessary for something to be considered a disability.
I mainly wanted to know your viewpoint on if you also view people who forego sexuality as disabled, because I like poking at potential sources of cognitive dissonance like that. We can continue the discussion if you still want to know more from me though, I would be happy to do that.
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
More options
Context Copy link