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 -
On Social Norms
One thing I dislike about critics of social norms is how bad they tend to be at understanding why people had certain norms in the past. Many people believe that everything was simply oppressive and to shit on people, without critically thinking about anything in particular.
Feminist for example, love to dunk on slut shaming, without thinking about the alternative, which is basically people getting sick as shit from disease, and various illegitimate children with multiple mothers/fathers. Of course, as long as you get checked for STD's and use protection, you could avoid many of those problems, but the fact we see large amounts of STDs, abortions, and single motherhood among various racial groups withing society (blacks, Hispanics, & native americans) doesn't make that argument convincing at scale. I've known of men & women who deliberately for go condoms because it doesnt "feel good", and then get a pikachu face when they are given diseases or get pregnant.
Its become more and more apparent to me that there are many people in our society who simply dont or cant make good decisions, even if given an optimal environment. Perhaps there is a discussion to be had around norms about dating and sex, even if we conclude slut shaming isnt an ideal solution?
Do you believe life would in fact be better, per your own value function, on the balance if inexplicable fences were always and everywhere respected as suggested in Chesterton's parable? You might have gotten some more decades of prohibition on homosexuality (until some threshold of medical advances is met), but you might also have gotten another 300 years of Mesoamerican human sacrifice culture (I figure it took at least this much until science had gotten to a point where it tried to give plausible rational explanations for why that tradition emerged and persisted).
Mesoamerican human sacrifice ended because the region was conquered by the Spanish who outlawed the mesoamerican religion and imposed their own- very Chesterton’s fence for the Spanish.
I don't see how that is so different from the person who wants to remove the fence in Chesterton's parable. He is also implied to be an outsider (as his conversation partner is in a position to let or not let him remove the fence). On that matter, discrimination of gays can be narrated as having ended because the social structures of the Red Tribe were conquered by the Blue Tribe, who (--"--).
A properly Chestertonian course of action, and indeed one that would be in line with attempted explanations for the practice that emerged much later, would have the Spanish think something like "huh, all the peoples around here are doing human sacrifice. Maybe there is some deep reason why it is adaptive for them in these lands. We should leave it alone until we figure out why".
If you don't accept this, it seems to me, the Fence rule only really imposes any restrictions on lone maverick reformers, who are rarely in a position to make sweeping rule changes anyway. Any group that can tear down fences on the level of national moral law in the US has to have been around and building its power base for a long time, and its proposed changes more often than not are consequences of its own deep history of moral preferences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link