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 -
More likely that if the woman later gets pregnant, or turns out to be pregnant despite you not allowing pregnant women in your study, the child, who signed no waivers, has an unlimited right to sue.
Perhaps it's time for a total and complete shutdown of family law and birth-related regulations until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on.
Blue tribe just need a strong Dr Fauci-like leader and the usual media campaign to spin it into a world-ending emergency to exempt the relevant corporations from legal consequences. Shouldn't be a big deal, barely an inconvenience. 'We need bodies for Russia/China/Iran/...'
Your objections seem maximally hand wavey 'yeah just massively alter society to fit this new goal, democrats did it back during covid'
Collapsing birthrates are a much bigger problem than covid. You're the one who cares about democracy, presumably. You should use the available tools of democracy to further goals that allow democracy to exist in the future. I for one am fine with democracy-skeptical high-birth-rates minorities taking over the future.
Where did I say I care about democracy?
You mentioned a government would be unpopular for overriding a few individuals' rights for the sake of enabling the continuation of mankind. This implicit concern for a government's popularity made me think you care about democracy.
Women's attitudes to childbirth and child raising are not the civilization-ending threat that modern Westerners think it is. The most backwards desert-dwelling tribesmen solved it thousands of years ago, this should be no big deal for the owners of the most sophisticated brainwashing system ever conceived.
Let's recap this whole thread
You have repeatedly and increasingly centralized the discussion around government. Every step was you moving in that direction. I joined this specific thread to talk about technology effects on fertility.
There are like a dozen other posters that will be happy to defend and discuss government effects on fertility. I'm not one of them. I don't care to play "pretend to be an authoritarian in order to save democracy". I like neither system so roleplaying as one to save the other has no appeal to me.
Go have the discussion you are looking for with someone else I am not the one you want.
To be clear, there is no fertility crisis. The people that really want to have kids are having them.
Some blue/grey people are hand-wringing about a lack of babies from their tribes but they are not accepting any of the obvious solutions at hand.
The blue/grey governments could absolutely make it easier to have babies in the near-term with solutions that are ethically in the same ballpark as the other stuff they are doing :
If they did recognize 'not having enough people born here from parents born and raised here' as a problem, they could solve it through technology.
Even the ozempic craze demonstrates that the culture can do a 180 on 'body positivity' provided technology is allowed to do its thing. I wouldn't be that surprised if we solved 'racism' once the 'whitify'-pill is invented or alternatively the 'white embryo selection' paradigm takes hold.
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