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 -
As I mentioned in another subthread earlier this week, Clancy had sufficient presence of of mind to send her husband away on an errand to give herself the time needed to kill the children. From what I've seen/heard of the trial, there is absolutely evidence that she was suffering from mental issues, but in my judgement not nearly severe enough to completely strip her of her agency and free will in deciding to brutally strangle her children (including an infant).
As I also argued in the other subthread, if women's hormones are strong enough to cause them to murder their own flesh and blood against their own free will, that's one of the strongest arguments imaginable against women's rights and female autonomy you could come up with. Testosterone causes its own problems for men, but nothing like this.
I didn't read the previous subthread, so I can't speak to the discussion you all have had there. I'd just like to point out that you're displaying the behavior that I described in my post. You acknowledge that she has some degree of mental issues - in other words, her cognition and impulses are different from yours, perhaps more distorted or reactive. Yet, because she isn't "completely" stripped of agency, you are choosing to categorize her as "culpable," which is likely the moral matrix in which you would regard yourself. Of course, what she did is monstrous and she is culpable in some form. But why does it have to be an either/or?
I think suggesting that a short-term medical anomaly affecting 1-2 in 1000 women is representative of baseline female hormonal function is quite dishonest. When people are in the throes of mental illness, we do deprive them of autonomy and rights temporarily (5150's), but once their mental normalcy returns, their rights return in tow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link