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 -
You don't understand how parents overruling children's autonomy is in the same category of parents overruling children's autonomy?
I've literally argued on this site for legalizing drugs and not caring when addicts overdose because it's their responsibility. I've argued against banning kids from phones and the Internet. I've argued against vaccine mandates. I've argued for free markets and getting rid of government regulations on everything from smaller government control like zoning to larger government control like the FDA which drives up costs and hurts people with long delays or immigration restrictions or anti discrimination laws (which are also unnecessary anyway in modern society to begin with) on large companies which prevents them from proper meritocratic hiring. I've consistently said that I am a fan of people like Reagan, Thatcher and Ayn Rand.
Almost every place that government exists, I say it should be scaled back. Sometimes I acknowledge that there are benefits to some government action (tradeoffs do exist!) like I see how welfare has personally helped a person in my life while also being against welfare overall. Or how I think that social security should have never existed, but since it did exist, it should fulfill the implicit promise behind it to the people they stole money from. Even Ayn Rand famously took her social security, because being against the program doesn't mean you can't ask the government to at least fulfill the promise it made when it took your money from you. She didn't think it should be stolen to begin with, but it's not hypocritical to say "then at least do what you said you would" right?
But generally I'm pretty damn consistent here, government out individual responsibilities in.
Yeah. Parents overrule children's autonomy all the time, arguably that's what they're for. Overriding it to the point where they can't leave their house unaccompanied is so extreme that it does belong in a separate category, in my opinion.
Really? You were here during the Covid era? My memory isn't great but I feel like I would have made a note given how vicious the Blues were at the time.
So you're assuming everyone else is a Randian / bordering on ancap? Because I don't see where's the hypocrisy otherwise.
That's true for younger children. But once you get to the teens, historically parents didn't have that much control! Especially the older teens. Their children would have had a job for a number of years and might have already moved out of the house for an apprenticeship as a page or a midshipmen or traveled along as a cowboy or did general work at a factory or whatever was fitting of the time period.
It's very recently where we've started coddling teenagers like we do with babies and toddlers.
No, I didn't know the site was around back then. I am not those other people, I am just saying that I am consistent.
No, I'm saying that if you're for one form of government coercion against the parent's and child's choices, but for another where it's only the parent, despite the latter also being more severe then there's not a good explanation for that besides politicizing and hypocrisy.
On every front anti vaxx is worse.
Autonomy? Parent alone choosing for a baby vs parent and teen.
Severity? 1.5% of the newborns died with just measles alone in Samoa.
Externalities? Anti vaxx can directly spread to people with weak immune systems or help disease evolve, where as a kid choosing to get their breasts removed and regretting it only hurts them.
Reverseability? While neither are wholly reversible, death is a lot worse than getting breasts removed and regretting it.
An argument that government coercion should overrule parents that cares about transition choices but not antivaxxers is not motivated by saving lives or helping people because the latter is far worse.
Ok, do you want to give 12 year olds the right to sign contracts, join the military, etc?
Also, if you want to RETVRN, I'm pretty sure that wanting to chop parts of your body off would be grounds to limit even an adults autonomy, due to lunacy and/or demonic posesion.
Not really. Even you accepted that in case of babies, it's normal for parents to override autonomy, we already accept the parents will be making. Also, there's a difference between forcing a procedure on someone (vaxx), and banning it. We do the latter all the time, but there's a taboo on the former.
Only a tiny minority (if anyone), of trans activists is in favor of a complete abolition of all medical regulations, so I'm not sure why you're seeing hypocricy in only one side.
Uh, are we talking about transitioning kids in Samoa? Why bring them up?
Sure, I'll even grant that in extreme enough circumstances, mandatory vaccinations could be justified.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link