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 -
Because all else being equal they want to maximize the number of requested marriages implemented (both because that's what the citizens want, and because it will make administration easier later down the line). Therefore any one couple failing to get legal recognition of their union is lost value, even if it is sometimes an acceptable loss in the interest of preventing inbreeding.
I don't know that I agree. This is sort of a weird and arbitrary thing to try to maximize. I think plenty of effort has gone into messaging that marriage is a big, serious thing, shouldn't be entered into lightly, and really annoying for the State to unwind if it goes poorly. Plenty of States have processes that take some time and effort, in part so that they're not just maximally implementing all marriage requests, when they could be really rash and hastily/carelessly requested.
I don't buy this one, because I don't think many citizens want to care about some cousins getting married. It's a tiny portion of the population. I think plenty of citizens are perfectly fine just not letting them get married. That's a perfectly fine default. Most citizens think they probably shouldn't even be having sex in the first place! There's basically no point in even thinking about them getting married. There's almost certainly not a ton of folks clamoring to create some special process for this for apparently no reason other than some vague quantity maximization. In fact, I think most citizens don't even know that this sort of case exists! On first impression, I imagine plenty would be perfectly happy with just reverting to the default of 'you're cousins, so you don't get married'.
I don't see how that's the case, either. It doesn't make administration much easier to have such a tiny percentage of people having sex marginally getting married, especially not for some weird special case that most people disapprove of anyway. This would be a tiny tiny change in the numbers and almost certainly not worth the effort.
Yeah, I just don't see how there's "value" in them just getting married. Even if there was, then there seems to be little reason for the rigmarole of proving infertility. The biggest issue with your account is that there's just no reason for the rigmarole if they're just maximizing requested marriages implemented.
Instead, what I think is far more parsimonious is that the State is using marriage as an incentive. They know that there will be some cousins out there who want to be having sex and such. They can't just ban this. But they certainly don't want irresponsible, inbred procreation. So hey, Bob and Alice; you'd like to get married, right? Ya know what, Bob, if you just cut off your balls (or take some less drastic measure to ensure infertility), we'll let you get married. I think this is much more parsimonious than some vague quantity maximization, especially if they're going to go to the trouble to set up a whole process for this, with what are likely to be some necessarily complex rules (how exactly do you verify infertility, what is sufficient verification, etc.).
Would you disagree?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link