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 -
If the option of euthanizing Mom for killer migraines wasn't available, would actual migraine treatment be more available?
Personally I'm in favor of actually fighting against encroachment on the cases which you think are too far, rather than relying on outraged Christian pro-life gesticulating and "slippery slope" blanket denial then acting like Surprised Pikachu when that wasn't enough.
Well friend, as soon as people step up to fight for better medical care, then we outraged Christians won't be carrying it all on our own and the particular level of moral purity you want for the cause will be better calibrated to your needs and preferences.
More options
Context Copy link
The point of "slippery slope" is this doesn't work. Once the principle has been yielded, you can fight all you want but you're going to slip down the slope.
Yes, that's what those advocating that some particular change is a slippery slope say.
"We've already established that you're a whore, now we're just haggling over the price".
Give in on "well okay some lives are not worth living" and you have no defence when the inch becomes a foot, then a yard, then a mile, each time the argument for extension is "but you already agreed we could do this, we just need a teeny little bit more".
The defense is "I am not giving more than an inch because I prefer it that way". It doesn't have to be based on principles. In fact principled arguments are the brittle ones as we can see here in the first place - they hold until they don't, and then suddenly the conservative, lacking a branch to grab on and having no practice in digging his heels in in any arbitrary spot, "has no defense".
Instead of staking everything on being or not being a whore, perhaps some people should learn to haggle.
Oh I have plenty of conservative principles and I'm holding tight to them. Helps to be Catholic, because even though Western Catholicism amongst the laity (and the late Boomer/Gen X generation of post-Vatican II clergy and religious) is loosey-goosey, the official positions of the Church still hold even amongst all the "now let's just be sensible and modern and accommodating and relevant to the needs of today" persuasion going on, and those are backed up by quoted principles.
You may disagree with those principles, but it can't be denied that they are principles and not just "well I kinda feel this is the way it should be".
Haggling over whoring leads to "sex work is real work" and OnlyFans and the plaints (many and numerous) on here about "why no date for I? why no wife and kiddies? why women not reply on dating apps?"
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