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 -
Someone taking reasonable measures to not produce a baby has not signed up for baby-making. The fact that it is a possible result doesn't mean they signed up for it; we don't use that standard anywhere else. "There's some chance that any human will go berserk and turn into a serial killer, so by living among humans, you've signed up for the possibility that a serial killer will kill you".
What if someone is taking unreasonable measures though?
Contraception is very safe and not difficult, but still there were 1.1 million abortions in the US last year (a third of births). That high a number is only possible to me if people are self-sabotaging their measures (“just the tip”).
you overestimate people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk
From their example, if you go skiing and break a bone, the resort will argue that that's what you signed up for when you got on the hill. It's pretty normal.
That's about the resort not being responsible, not about you being responsible. If you break a bone at a ski resort, you are not required to do anything costly based on that fact. (You may want to do something, like go to a hospital, but that's different, and you would be going to the hospital based on personally benefitting from having your injury treated.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't this basically true, though? It's certainly not ideal, but people are generally against constructing the sort of society in which this statement isn't true. See regular political fights over gun control, or even driving laws. Lots of people (tens of thousands in the US) die annually at the hands of plain 'ol human failure modes.
Even if you could semi-reliably identify those that will "go berserk", you'd have to wade through a bunch of legal questions to actually do something about it under current law.
We don't say "you assumed this risk by deciding to live in a place full of humans". It's entirely the fault of the serial killer, and the fact that someone "signed up for the possibility" of living next to a serial killer is not taken into consideration at all.
Generally, we don't say that you "signed up for" something which you've taken reasonable (but not 100% certain) measures to avoid, particularly if avoiding it completely makes it hard to live a normal life.
The analogy would be knowing which sexual acts (even with contraception) will result in a pregnancy, which you can't identify ahead of time either.
Well. Historically we said that, but over the last several years progressive urbanists and anti-carceralists have taken strange new approaches to victim-blaming.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link