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 -
The "more teenage pregnancies" has an archive here; that itself was just controversial, but the author also started linking hundred+ page PDF links with hardcore NSFW content that made the moderators have to deal with it and just generally making clear that they were either trolling at best, and... well, "turning teens into baby factories shortly after menarche" was the only reasonable read of their post, but it was way closer than I'd like to be anywhere near.
For the more general problem, I think there's definitely too much emphasis on later child-rearing in ways that are counterproductive both for those who can't or don't conceive at 30+, and even not great for those who do (both in health outcomes for the child, available energy, age-related issues for both parents). I think clearing up a lot of (charitably) miscommunication about those matters is probably going to be more effective.
(or, uh, institutional support for surrogacy on massive and probably also incredibly controversial scales.)
That said it's probably worth noting what a lot of the post-1960 curve is responding to. While a lot of US state laws date back to the Civil War era, enforcement and social norms largely treated those as tools for very limited sets of circumstances, rather than general rules. There was a lot more treatment of 16-year-olds as 'adults' for these purposes, and they stopped (and changed a variety of federal laws!), for a reason through the early 1970s. There's a few different causes, but one of the biggest was that most of the male half of such cases were not themselves teenagers, and that quite a lot of this turned out to be incredibly predatory. Anything that even risks bringing that sort of problem forward is going to (rightfully!) be a major landmine.
deleted
Median age of marriage, US
The gap has narrowed recently but it seems for a very long time, women have generally been in serious relationships with men a few years older.
More options
Context Copy link
The sexuality and sexual experiences of our children is one of those few times where a clear bias exists within each and everyone of us and if the science gave us an answer the was counter to that bias then we would deny and burn down the science department. That is to say, it's one of the few dark spaces in scientific discourse where the science becomes irrelevant by the end of the day due to extreme public blowback.
So honestly by the end of the day all I can say on the subject is that you will almost likely never get a satisfactory discussion on the subject matter if you go against the current acceptable standard at any point in history, and arguing for or against even neutrally is not worth the social status loss risk of doing so.
And just to further clarify, my statements here are not from a they don't want to hear they are wrong about 16 being too young position, rather my lack of joy is from a I hate science having dark no go spaces when it clashes against social beliefs and comfort zones.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link