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 -
Sorry, I misread "accident", since it's a common euphemism for all crashes. Trying again:
Same with the passenger. Sucks to be him because I'm fine. Were you expecting me to go back on "I also [voluntarily take on risks] as a passenger of a car with a responsible driver." from upthread when I'm placed in the driver's seat instead?
Every lawyer in the United States would say that, and every judge would agree. They also say nonsense like growing grain on your own farm to feed your own animals is "interstate commerce". At best, it's an instance of people acting like babies appear from nothing, not an argument for the idea.
I mean in this case the passenger is analogous to the baby.
I feel this topic will endlessly fail to converge because of the underlying teleological differences. If one side believes in a unitary telos of sex -> reproduction and the other believes in a multi-variate telos of sex, then I think convergence is unlikely. The risk-based argument fundamentally belongs to the multi-variate telos. The unitary telos smuggles in Christian values, which is not very convincing to non-Christians. There are other arguments, but ones that are anchored on the topic of life/humanness are always semantic debates where each side trots out their specific very biased tailored definition and attacks the opposing definition.
Unfortunately many of both sides are also invertebrate hypocrites around the principles of this discussion, and want to cut a fine boundary carveout for their pet side while dodging the "child-support payments" of the downstream costs. The best that can we can really hope for is that each side sticks to holding their own views in their own community and doesn't try to enforce it on the other side's community. But due to the universalist and totalizing natures of the underlying grand narratives involved that sort of equilibrium is probably not emergent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link