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 -
For whatever reason, my gut feeling of my friends is that the ones who are most vocal about being pro-abortion are also the most vocal about being anti-screening. It seems like "abortions are no problem, unless you're doing so because the future child would have a disability". I guess it's reconcilable as being against dehumanizing people with disabilities?
Where does that gut feeling come from? As far as hypocrisies go, this isn't one I have ever seen in actual people. My friend group is uniformly pro-abortion, and every couple who has had kids screened them beforehand and likely would have aborted if anything came up. Not doing that would have raised eyebrows and been seen as irresponsible.
I suspect they're a pair of stances that only coexist in kids who are overexposed to lunatics on social media.
More options
Context Copy link
Or more generally, reconcilable with believing that the Lives of those who belong to lifetime economically negative value-add groups Matter More.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah there were a bunch of people on twitter pushing the 'Abortion for any reason is fine, unless it's disability at which point you are committing a hecking eugenics' which creates this funny moral situation where you can supposedly abort out of mere potential inconvenience but also the like maximally inconvenient child cannot be aborted.
A similar phenomenon occurs when people who are very pro-abortion for women’s Fun and Freedom reasons get big mad at those who are pro-abortion for reasons relating to the ethnic and socioeconomic composition of abortion-getters.
More options
Context Copy link
I can understand where theyre coming from, but it almost makes it into some kind of insane game show: "Okay, you're here for the screening? I'll just need you to sign here to acknowledge that at any point prior to seeing the results, you can abort no problems/no judgement, but once you see the results, if they have any negstive attributes, any abortion becomes morally unjustifiable - although if the screening says they'll be perfect. You can still abort at will. So keep the folder sealed until you're 100% sure you either want the child or are willing to be branded a Nazi to get rid of it!"
For an IVF situation, one could set-up a Monty Hall-type problem. A couple has ten files in front of them (or n files for however many they fertilized), each corresponding to screening results of the embryo they’ll have to implant.
The couple picks a file, say #1. Their doctor opens up a different file, it’s a Downie. Does the couple decide to stay with #1 or choose a different file?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's interesting, and exactly opposite my intuitions. I think that abortion in general is wrong, but that abortion for a life long disability is much more relatable and grey than abortion because the mother doesn't want to give birth to it (assuming the pregnancy and mother are generally healthy and normal).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link