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 -
I don't actually believe that parents should be able to do whatever they want with their children without limits, so this line of argument isn't convincing to me.
Also it's not without limits since the parents can only veto the relationship, not compel it. Also what is even less convincing is that my daughter's genitals are your business at all. A pretty weird notion if you ask me.
There's plenty of things that we don't allow people to let their kids do.
Pal, you don't have a daughter. This whole post is about how you want to coom in underage pussy. Let's drop the "no, you're weird!" act.
You don't know anything about me. this is clearly bad faith / inflammatory but society tolerates this bad attitude on this topic so it's unlikely the mods will enforce any rules on you here for this. In an unbiased and reasonable world your view would be on the defensive because it is poorly thought out, in general and especially when weighted by how extremely controlling it is. A romantic relationship involving two families is not sarker's business at all. You are literally irrelevant to what family A and family B and their son and daughter do and you need a lot better reasoning than saying your rules are good enough before you can justly enforce anything like that.
So, do you have a daughter?
A romantic relationship involves two individuals, not families.
Haven't you read Romeo and Juliet? That idea is deadly.
So no daughter after all?
Excellent example - Romeo and Juliet turned out deadly because of the meddling of the families. Two consenting adults getting married would be a non-issue if those honor culture goons hadn't been obsessed with their blood feud to the detriment of everything else.
No they turned out deadly because they went behind the families' backs.
13 year old Juliet is a consenting adult to you? I guess I took you for more of a normie. Nevermind then.
This is like someone punching you in the face and saying you made them do it because you called them a mean name.
She isn't, which is why she shouldn't have been allowed to marry and her family shouldn't have been plotting a marriage for her.
The "deadly" situation in the play is a mixture of tribal honor culture and child marriage which results in terrible outcomes everywhere it's tried (see e.g. the Arab world). It's a total nonsequitur to pretend that this is an argument against limiting marriage to consenting adults.
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
More options
Context Copy link