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 -
Why not? Children can't consent so we allow parents/guardians to consent for them. You can't raise children relying on their consent because they won't eat, won't go to the bathroom and so on and so forth. They are not fully realised human beings. So someone must make decisions for them. If they sprung from the womb fully formed then I would agree. But our morality must exist in the world we have, not some other more preferable world. It is ok to force children to do things when it is not ok to force adults to do the same things. Because children and adults are different. Just like it is ok to do things to animals that are not ok to do to humans. Different people/things/ objects can be treated differently by nature of their differences. I eat pork and tomatoes but not people. I've broken the necks of chickens for dinner, but I'm not going to twist the head off the neighbors child.
With respect something being morally objectionable and "X having a right for Y not to happen" are very very different things. For a start morality has multiple different frameworks.
A Utilitarian might do Y to X because it is for the greater good, while a Virtue Ethicist might not do Y to X because doing so is not virtuous. So it can't simply be that" X has a right for Y not to happen" is the same as being morally objectionable, because morality can disagree! So to a Utilitarian X does not have a right for Y not to happen. And for the Virtue Ethicist they don't do it not because of any rights X has but because they don't think it is virtuous to do at all, regardless of what rights they might have to do it.
If you want to say something is morally objectionable that is fine! But by which moral framework? Which is why rights are not required for morality in general but only for some moral frameworks. So they have to separated out.
More options
Context Copy link