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 -
I don't believe traditionalists' revealed motives are trustworthy.
It was absolutely a stupid, destructive idea to replace abuse and overreach perpetrated by men (traditionalism) with abuse and overreach perpetrated by women (progressivism), yes. We have noticed the skulls that gynosupremacy has created, including the fractional ones generated by concern trolling.
But the traditionalists are, at least in popular consciousness, insisting that we merely reset it so it's male abuse and overreach again, uncritically and unironically- where for everyone else, the problem isn't who's doing it, it's what they're permitted to do. They're trying to prosecute a culture war they've already lost, in the same way they lost it before, and expecting things to be different somehow.
The thing traditionalists don't seem to have a satisfying answer for is "why is gayness uniquely bad"? Why does it uniquely fuel identarianism, if it does? When I consider the question of "if it wasn't this, would it have been something else?", I think back on all the times it has been something else, and note that there's nothing unique/special to non-straightness that lends itself to being used as a weapon in this way.
Because the traditionalists (as a natural consequence of being traditionalist) are unwilling, or unable, to come up with an answer for why it is unique (vagina-having and melanin-having being the two used for this before, with dishonorable mentions to religion and nationality) without ultimately falling back on some variation of "sin"- if they had a better argument, they'd be making it- then I judge they're no different than those who also have the same definition of sin but with the who and whom switched.
The axiomatic rejection that gayness (or whatever else) at times can be productive/the right answer to a particular pair-bonding question means that the needle cannot be threaded/competing interests cannot be balanced between "these relationships function mostly like straight ones do outside of certain specifics; we don't need to hunt these guys down" and "doing this thing that just so happens to be more common in this subgroup creates externalities that are not society's bill to foot".
I'm not interested in swapping a failing axiom for an already-failed axiom (while I am broadly OK with feeding progressives to traditionalists I'm under no deception that's productive); either we grow together limiting/harnessing the axioms to guide us into a position that can be rationally justified, or we don't grow.
I'm a little confused here.
Firstly, social conservatives and particularly conservative Christians do have quite detailed answers for why same-sex relations are morally bad. If you aren't satisfied, presumably you either don't find those answers convincing, or you aren't aware of them, but I suppose neither strikes me as a particularly devastating criticism. Let's charitably assume that you are familiar with and unconvinced by, for instance, teleological arguments, or arguments from natural law. It's not clear to me why that in itself should be that concerning, particularly since my suggestion here is not "social conservatives are absolutely correct in everything they have asserted", but rather "social conservative predictions coming true is an opportunity to re-evaluate their earlier claims". Social conservative arguments around sexual morality might be only partially true, or might lead to some pragmatically true conclusion for the wrong reasons; in either case it would still be worthwhile to revisit their arguments and see what might be salvaged.
Secondly, social conservatives do not claim that same-sex relations are uniquely bad, and I don't know where you got that idea. Let's assume a traditionalist Christian approach here. That approach is that same-sex relations are one species within the wider category of sexual sin. The category of sexual immorality or porneia is quite a broad one, and the reasons why same-sex unions are bad (illicit, to be discouraged, sinful, whatever language you like) are substantially the same reasons why many other forms of sexual behaviour are bad (this is where progressives would get very angry at the comparison between homosexuality and various other paraphilias).
So I'm not sure I understand your retort here. Social conservatives have explained why same-sex relations are bad at great length, and they have not argued that same-sex relations are uniquely bad in a way that sets them apart from any other sexual immorality. What's left here? You don't find conservative arguments against same-sex relations convincing? Well, good for you, I suppose.
Replace the word 'sin' with 'bad', if you prefer. It doesn't make much practical difference. I'm often baffled by the way secular people seem to understand the word 'sin'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link