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 think Weinstein put it best. “We can’t just exonerate a dead white guy who […]”. But it doesn’t matter what he did. These people hate straight white men, especially any from the past. They wouldn’t mind naming it after the Hidden Figures black women, despite their probability of being as or more homophobic (the majority back then, especially in the black community). And it wouldn’t matter to them that the Hidden Figures women were lower level employees doing college-level math to double check the actual mathematicians. They would be totally fine with it, Chandra-Weinstein would love it, because it means someone from their tribe is named. I don’t think there’s any reason to elaborate motives
From a 2014 article
(I vaguely recall going through her ancestry and finding, like, three generations of Marxists on her father’s side. It’s like a family business. Wasn’t there also controversy over her wife not being real or something?)
https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=6681
Everything cited here. Additionally:
It’s especially funny that a black woman is lecturing white people on homosexuality. The acceptance of homosexuality is a purely “white people countries” phenomenon, at less comparing major powers. Without white people, it’s unlikely any black nation would have gained tolerance of homosexuality. Without non-Jewish white people it’s also unlikely, because the secularization of Jews required the effects of the renaissance and an accepting European host to protect them from being slain by their rabbinical leader.
For what it's worth, many cultures more or less accepted homosexuality within the appropriate context (European example: the Greeks). European imperialism extended a broad disapproval of it to the extent state policing of same sex sex was considered right.
A man who was known to fuck other men would do better in a hunter gatherer culture (so long as he hunted productively, produced heirs, and fought in wars) than he would in a colonial society.
More options
Context Copy link
What?
Yeah, it took achieving superpower status to bother extending charity to homosexuals. That’s the story of liberalism: you’ve got to be secure before people are willing to give everyone the same rights.
Coincidentally, all those major powers involved a lot of white people. I don’t see any reason black people wouldn’t have done the same conditional on having gotten that far.
I have no idea what you mean by getting slain by the rabbi.
If Netherlands was ever a superpower, it wasn't in 2001 when it made marriage sex-agnostic. In fact presently no European country can claim to be a superpower, but many followed in the clog shapped footsteps.
An improved argument would be taking instead the prosperity of the countries people, and not the influence it wield on the international stage. Here you would have a better case: countries that say a man can marry a man are more similair in their GDP per capita, than in the number of aircraft carriers with nuclear bombers their navy posses.
But on the other hand, this logical implication of rich countries recognizing such unions and poor countries refusing, only applies if the rich countries are restricted to European states. Qatar and Singapore have higher GDP/capita than the US, but their stance on this issue is contrary to Obergefell. The latter is shared with Israel, Japan, and South Korea.
If one believes in Whig history and interprets the past as inevitably marching towards the present, yes. But one equally well say that the ultimate and universal moral framework hasn't yet been discovered, and that groups today considered fully human, whose proclivities are to be enabled by society acting directly, or through the state, are historically contigent.
Consent framework once championed by LGBTQI+ activists as providing a justifiction for their goals, had epicycles added upon it to stigmatize may-december romances between, what is considered by law, to be two adults. Or the "power imbalance" cudgel, deployed to attack workplace amorous activity, claiming "Not trully consensual.".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link