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 -
Patchwork. All the people with value X live in X-land and all the people with value Y live in Y-land. Then we can see which one is better in the long run. Gigantic continent sized super-state is a terrible idea.
Unfortunately one of the sides of this debate seems to have decided on universalism and declared their position on the matter a human right and attempted to make it apply to the whole country.
I suspect parts of the other side also would prefer dominion. But you can't have a federation of even one side wants an empire.
Both sides of this debate have decided on a universal stance. Both want their moral system to apply to everyone, even people that aren't buying into it. They both want dominion and to ban the other.
Ergo vae victis.
Only if you think values are zero-sum.
I suppose in theory artificial wombs could remove the moral hazard, but I get an inkling that it's the financial and moral obligations people don't want, not merely the bodily impositions. And as to whether the baby is dead or alive, it is zero sum.
As a comment upthread suggested. The policy positions can be downstream of the same values. There is a very clear tension in this debate between the right to bodily autonomy vs how much of that right you have when it concerns another person's life. Both the left and right have been on different sides of that equation in different policies. That would imply that they both value it. The compromise is in applying it universally across the board.
Example:
Forced covid vaccination (or other plague vaccination) vs the right to bodily autonomy. The right maintains that the government should not be able to tell them when medications they must inject into their body (clear bodily autonomy) vs the left believing that the lives of 100s of people outweigh that right in order to stop a pandemic.
Abortion vs the life of a child. The bodily autonomy of one person vs the life of 1 child. Now the right is on the side of life vs the left on the side of bodily autonomy.
They both clearly believe in the right to bodily autonomy, they share the same value, they just disagree on downstream policy prescriptions. Which means compromise is possible.
No, they don't. Those who support legal abortion on "bodily autonomy" grounds don't assign any meaning to "bodily autonomy" outside the cause of abortion. Not to forced vaccination, not to drug use, not to anything. "Bodily autonomy" is not a general principal, it is a soldier assigned to that specific front and no other.
I feel like this a convenient bias, because it also looks like anti-forced vacc supporters don't extend bodily autonomy to abortion. Looks like world is full of political hypocrites
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link