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 guy who chanted "Bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
And allegedly purchased a child via surrogacy. Probably not the kind of aesthetics I'd support, but I suppose that's the problem with trying to judge someone by aesthetics. I don't care for Trump's, but I'd be hard pressed to name a politician from either party who has aesthetics that make me think I should support them.
In the absence of artificial uteruses, how is a gay male couple supposed to have a biological kid for one of the fathers except throug surrogacy? I don't see what the aesthetic opposition could be here unless it is to such a degree that gay males are not able to "aesthetically" have biological children at all.
They're not. That's what they sacrifice as gay men. It's a helluva dilemma to be put on the horns of, but that's the hand they've been dealt.
More options
Context Copy link
Gay couples having kids really is a bad thing. It’s obvious girls are just different. I see it every time my gf does little baby talk with her cat. Men just don’t have that silliness where they can actually have fun doing dumb kid stuff for hours every day. Mothers are different.
We actually did have a technology that let gay guys have kids. They just picked a wife and had sex. Then occasionally went out with the boys and did gay stuff. It worked fine for gay guys who wanted kids.
Instead modern society places sexual identity at the top of a hierarchy of needs. But not having a mother (by design) seems far worse to me than having to hide some sexual attraction.
I broadly agree that men and women have different psychology around kids and nurturing, but has there been much research into ways gay men are psychologically more similar to women?
Like, aside from the obvious thing of being attracted to men, it seems like gay culture in several different times and places tends to adopt a lot of the trappings of the female gender role. Is this just because it is a slightly better way to seduce "straight guys", or does it reflect actual biological differences in gay men? Do gay men tend to have more thing-orientation, or person-orientation?
Is it possibly the case that gay men are better nurturers, on average, than straight men? (Though, if this turned out to be true, it would just shift to the idea that two lesbians raising kids would probably be a bad idea. Unless it is an averaging effect of some sort with other biological factors balancing out, then maybe the best nurturing parents might be: straight woman > lesbian woman ~= gay man > straight man.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I never knew it was any different. I was singing that song in my head a couple weeks ago.
In Pete’s case, the aesthetics has already gone south. Aretaics couldn’t be all that salvific if it produced the same mediocre outcomes. It’s the case with all moral systems. Moral systems fail as people ‘depart’ from their values unless the content itself is the object of your critique (e.g. Nietzsche).
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, just about everyone of a certain age has to be tempted to do that when the subject of Iran comes up. If the regime falls, the new regime would be well-advised to ask the country be called "Persia" again just to break that association.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link