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 -
Two parents beat their two children, and tell the children to refrain from reporting the abuse. They are convicted of various state crimes—simple assault, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, endangering welfare of children, and corruption of minors. One of these things is not like the others! But the appeals panel affirms.
Are there culture-war implications here? Can a parent be prosecuted under this statute for teaching his child that the government is not to be trusted or that polyamory is moral? According to one judge concurring in the majority's disposition of a prior case but not in its reasoning, the answer is "yes".
In practice, the govt. has prosecuted people under this statute only when the corrupting behavior also constituted a separate crime—whether something major like statutory rape, or something minor like encouraging someone else's child to disobey his parents.
But, in theory, there is nothing stopping the govt. from prosecuting under this statute based only on some idea that the defendant's noncriminal behavior tends to corrupt the child.
The interpretation endorsed by the majority is quite broad: "Actions that tend to corrupt the morals of a minor are those that would offend the common sense of the community and the sense of decency, propriety, and morality which most people entertain." I guess any actual prosecution for teaching libertarianism or polyamory to children would cause this interpretation to be narrowed under federal precedent. But it still seems like an interesting topic to be aware of.
Give 'em the hemlock!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link