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 -
Popping the filter bubble and the sanctity of life.
This Tuesday I was presented with a piece of Trivia that brought me up short.
My initial reaction was to quite literally exclaim "bullshit!" but having looked into it, there does appear to be a case. According to the Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada (which is currently the most recent report available) Canadian doctors euthanized 16,499 individuals in 2024, an increase of 7.5% over the 15,343 euthanized in 2023. Meanwhile The Trace a website maintained by the Gun Control advocacy organization Everytown USA maintains that there were 14,651 instances of Homicide by Gunshot in 2025. While this number does not include self-inflicted gunshots (IE Suicides) it does include an estimated 1,200 cases where the shooting was likely justified (IE suspects being shot by police or by would-be victims) and at least 2 instances of execution by firing squad.
Upon review of those numbers and their associated trend-lines where instances of euthanasia in Canada have increased with each consecutive year since it was legalized, while homicide in the US has been trending downward for the last 5 years from it's Pandemic-era peak it actually seems likely to me that more people are killed by doctors in Canada than are killed by guns in the US. Not "per capita" but by raw quantity (16 thousand people and change versus 14 thousand and change).
Considering the above in the context of another story that came across my feed a couple weeks ago. A Ghoulish Proposal Gets a Prestige Endorsement, it seems to me that there is a concerted effort on the part of certain factions to commodify and devalue Human life. See this story from the New York Times last year Organ Donors are too Rare we Need a New Definition of Death. I expect the media to assure me that that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy announcing that the Network for Hope (an organ procurement non-profit serving Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) having had their certification revoked on the basis of credible claims that many donors were not legally dead at the time their organs were harvested is completely unrelated.
On a slightly different track, back when Harris was running for president there was this "ridiculous claim" that the Left wanted to legalize Abortion up to the moment of crowning, but just this Monday, Massachusetts became the 10th state in the union to do just that.
As in my prior "Popping filter bubbles" posts I don't feel like any of these things really warrant a post on their own, but when taken together they illustrate a trend, and I find myself lacking the vocabulary to describe my growing sense of unease with where this one seems to be going.
There's a repeating discourse cycle where first a conservative sounds the alarm with raw MAID numbers, and then someone else comes in and provides a more detailed breakdown showing it's overwhelmingly old people near death who use MAID (as aqouta does below). I'm not a big fan of the state killing young healthy people with depression (even at their own request) but I've seen this cycle so many times that I basically tune out any anti-MAID people who just post raw numbers.
If you're conservative and you want to persuade people who don't share your worldview but think there's some potential for state overreach or bad norms, it's counterproductive to sound the alarm with these high headline numbers when many people are okay with use case that makes up the vast majority. Tell me if there is large percentage growth in specifically young healthy people with mental illness. Tell me if MAID is increasing total completed voluntary deaths among physically healthy people rather than displacing suicides. But if you just post "the total number of MAID uses is going up" and then someone else says "that's 95% old people or people near death" you haven't popped my filter bubble, you've reinforced it.
95% oldies today. What about tomorrow?
How many users of artificial contraception today are married couples with a kid or two just using it to space out their family so they will end up with three, four, or five children over a sensible period? But that's how it started, and that was the exact same argument: oh don't try and scare me, the numbers don't bear it out.
I've had an interest in tracking this particular issue through the Anglican Communion and I think it's instructive as to how acceptance changes social attitudes, then social attitudes further soften on acceptance, in a circle. "The Lambeth Conference is a decennial international gathering of bishops from the Anglican Communion, convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury"; basically it's where they gather to thrash out pastoral questions and applications of theology to the practice of the churches.
1920 Lambeth Conference: no-no to contraception, it is wrong and sinful
1930 Lambeth Conference: well okay but only for married couples in cases of necessity
1948 Lambeth Conference - nothing about contraception, they were much more worried about divorce becoming widespread and easily available, and divorced people wanting to remarry in the Church. And warning against marrying Roman Catholics.
1958 Lambeth Conference - God wants you to use contraception! (but only if you're married):
1968 Lambeth Conference - the Catholics are wrong in "Humanae Vitae", technically you should only be contracepting if you're married and planning to have kids eventually but eh, we all know how society is going:
1978 Lambeth Conference - contraception? birth control? Nah, we've moved on to the gays now.
So it took just 48 years to move from "the only permissible form of birth control is abstinence" to "that's wrong, dumb Romans! (let's not mention that used to be our position too)" and then another 10 years to capitulate on social acceptance and increasingly widespread sex outside of marriage and use of contraception.
60 years from "this is wrong and sinful" to "this is your duty, God says".
Things move a lot faster today. Don't presume that "95% oldies" now is going to remain "95% oldies" in future.
OP posted as an attempt to "pop filter bubbles" and I just want to say that for people outside the conservative filter bubble the argumentative form of proposing a slippery slope and then assuming we'll inevitably slide down it to the bottom is not highly persuasive. The pro-life movement (which has had a strong of recent successes in the U.S.) doesn't say "we demand a return to the 1920s status quo on contraception because anything else is an inevitable slippery slope to infanticide" because they know that isn't actually persuasive to the public.
I'm not going to spend my time trying to disabuse religious conservatives of their belief that society slides down every slippery slope they can imagine. I do hope I can get you all to understand it's an eccentric aspect of your worldview and you're not popping filter bubbles by telling everyone else that you can imagine slippery slopes without providing evidence we're actually sliding down them.
What's wrong with slippery slope arguments? Would you also dismiss concerns of global warming ("climate change") as a slippery slope argument? Or the Nazi bar argument? It's just arguing from basic causality. It shouldn't be taken less seriously to argue that if X happens, then Y, and then if Y, then Z. Especially when there doesn't seem to be a consistent limiting principle that would stop the chain of causality from continuing to Z. You are free to disagree on the specifics on X, Y and Z, but just dismissing arguments of this form out of hand doesn't seem conducive to discussion.
Proposing a plausible sounding chain of causation is cheap and easy and only persuasive to people who already share your beliefs about how complex social dynamics will inevitably play out. I will note that when the climate people propose "more CO2 -> higher average global temperature -> economic/environmental/humanitarian catastrophe" they then go on to spend tremendous resources measuring the global average temperature and developing cyclical climate models and attempt to show that the increased number of extreme weather events is related to the rising average global temperature.
In this thread anti-MAID people are proposing "terminal cancer patients and people with degenerative neurological conditions using MAID -> healthy old people using MAID because of new social norms about not being a burden -> depressed 25 year olds killing themselves" (x->y->z). I think that's a plausible chain of events, but I don't think it's the only possible way for a complex social change to play out, so I am asking for evidence that y and z are happening at increased rates relative to the past. No one in this thread has bothered to answer me with numbers. I've gotten "x->y->z is plausible because a->b->c in the past" or "isn't the general form x->y->z valid" or "x is increasing" but no one is digging into the stats to tell me what's going on with y and z.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure looks like a slope. Sure looks like it's trending downhill. Sure looks like heading downhill is accelerating.
But no, don't believe your lying eyes, that's not slippery and it's not a slope!
I'm not even disagreeing with you all that this is a potentially slippery slope I'm just asking for any sort of numerical evidence that we're sliding (young people or healthy old people are using MAID more) and no one has bothered to provide it. I'm just supposed to "believe my eyes" about statistical trends in the Canadian medical system, what?
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