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 -
An influencer couple announced that they aborted their pregnancy because the fetus had Down syndrome. This upset a lot of people including some fine congressmen.
However, it's actually very common. Screening for genetic disorders is generally performed between 10 and 20 weeks, giving plenty of time for a reasonably early choice. "As a result of these elective terminations in the U.S., there was a 37% reduction in the numbers of babies with Down syndrome born in 2018. This means that in recent years there were 37% fewer babies with Down syndrome than could have been born". In Iceland, almost all such diagnosed pregnancies are aborted after testing.
People with Down syndrome are clearly generally capable of living "happy" lives. They have the equivalent intelligence of an 8 to 9 year old. Most 8 to 9 year olds seem happy enough to me, and it would not be a horrible curse to live decades in such a condition. Perhaps we might ask if such a life is fulfilling, but a young child can't comprehend what that means; as well ask your dog if he's fulfilled by sniffing butts and digging holes.
For the caretakers of course, life may not be so rosy. Taking care of a small child indefinitely, knowing all of the joys and sorrows of adulthood that they will never experience, does not sound fulfilling, to say nothing of the physical and monetary toll. It's therefore unsurprising that most parents choose not to condemn themselves to such a future.
God in His infinite wisdom creates babies with far worse afflictions. Most people would agree that it is ethical, perhaps mandatory, to abort nonviable children who will live only hours in agonizing pain after birth. Down syndrome, as a patently survivable condition, lies on the edge of this boundary.
This is a pretty interesting debate as it demonstrates a real fracture point between the "alt-right" NRx folk (such that still exist) and the "trads" who might otherwise be allies of convenience. We can joke about 13/52 and find common ground on e.g., the execution of rapists, murderers, and child molesters; plausibly agree on the utility of racial profiling, nativism and remigration, and broadly reject blank slatism in all its forms -- but god forbid (and, I suppose, God forbids) we proactively prune a few fetuses with extra chromosomes.
The religious right will, of course, construct their Jenga tower of cope re: why their ideology doesn't immediately collapse back down into leftist slave morality, but ultimately, they protect them because they are pitiful, and that is indistinguishable from progressivism. I have no faith that these "allies" would be willing to bar the gates and sink the ships in a Camp of the Saints-style dystopia; it's all just LARP.
On average, I don’t think trads are that down for joking about 13/52. Nor do I think they’re pro-racial profiling. And not only do modern trads not reject blank slatism, they’re broadly pro-blank slatism (except for “too obvious” cases like Down syndrome).
Agreed that trads wouldn’t have it in them to bar any gates or sink any ships in a Camp of the Saints-type situation. They’d rather lose gracefully than risk being mean to Vulnerable Groups. They may even bend the knee and metaphorically or literally wash the feet of migrants upon arrival. This wouldn’t expose them as LARPers, though, as they’ve been consistent in being progressives driving the speed limit all along.
I don't think this analysis really checks out; "trads" and "conservatives" are not the same group, and the latter are the ones it's reasonable to pose as "progressives driving the speed limit". Best I can tell, trads are generally opposed to racism, but pretty good at noticing when people are fucking with them with false accusations of racism, except in cases that are especially dimwitted and easy for progressives to peel off by any number of tactics. Some of their number predictably die in overseas mission trips or doing other charity work, so they do have to have some "suicidal empathy". However, it's often said that progressives support policies that let dangerous criminals into the country, but wouldn't personally invite them into their homes; I think trads are basically exactly the converse. They aren't generally Amish-style absolute pacifists, and it's pretty easy to whip them up into a nationalist fervor by posing things as a cultural and religious war.
"Trads," as used to describe the religious right as @meduka was doing, are generally considered a subset of conservatives. And while they may not drive at the exact same speed or always on the same roads as other conservatives, I still contend they're progressives driving the speed limit. This can be seen in instances like you mentioned, suicidal empathy or pathological altruism in overseas mission trips or other charity work at considerable personal time and expense, up to and including death.
This type of Noticing may be present among Online RETVRN types (who would likely fall under "'alt-right' NRx folk" or a spiritual offshoot thereof), but generally absent from the religious right. It wasn't the Online RETVRN types who were bending the knee to wash black people's feet during BLM. In general, the knees of the modern religious right bend easily, as can be seen with gay marriage.
I don't think trads oppose policies that let dangerous criminals into the country, insofar a disproportionate amount of dangerous criminals are the byproduct of letting in migrants from the Global South, and being kind and welcoming to migrants (regardless of their ethnic or regional origins) are part of being a good Christian/Catholic. For example, the two most recent popes are/were oft-quoted in simping for migrants/illegal immigrants.
I've seen/heard relatively little pushback from TradCaths in discussions about the popes' water-carrying for migrants/illegal immigrants, although TradCaths should supposedly be quite down for criticizing the pope for being too ${CurrentYear}. In contrast, I've seen/heard much more spirited participation from TradCaths in discussions about abortion or transsexuality. Stronger opinions in discussions on the popes' water-carrying for migrants/illegal immigrants instead come from the "'alt-right' NRx"-types and progressives, the former lulzing and/or seething ("with Christ-cuck allies like these, who needs enemies?") and the latter dabbing/gloating ("see? Even your pap-daddy in the Vatican says that no human is illegal").
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