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 they are correct to fight it. Any sort of seemingly soft barrier can be turned into a hard barrier.
"You must look at an ultrasound of the baby before abortion" is how it starts. And then suddenly the state also makes it very difficult to get ultrasounds at abortion clinics. Or restricts and regulates who can give ultrasounds.
Similar things play out in other areas of regulation. "You need to make sure this building isn't harming the environment" becomes 'you need a specialist environmental inspector that we license and regulate into obscurity and the waiting list is years long to see one'. Or "You need to have firearms training before you are allowed to own one" ... and only police or police in training can actually visit the firing ranges where they do firearms training.
The power to tax and regulate is the power to destroy. When the goal of your political opponents is to fully ban a thing it is correct to be suspicious of them proposing a "small" barrier.
You saw that happen with dispensaries in California after weed became legal. Once the state went in on the industry it started over regulating the hell out of the market such that some resellers were left scratching their heads and wondering if they should go back to the underground market for dealing since it was less burdensome and more profitable.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair enough.
I was gesturing towards how science (better ultrasound) contributes to a non-science value judgement, or rather, undercuts a theoretical judgement: I hear it's much harder to go through with an abortion once you see the heartbeat or fingers or face, than if you keep it a pleasantly theoretical "clump of cells."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link