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 -
I realize this isn’t a top quality post, so I accept the judgement of the mods, but a mistrial has been declared in the case of Lindsay Clancy. Shes the woman in Massachusetts who admitted to killing her kids, but claims she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The jury deliberated for seven days. Apparently, it came down to one male juror holding out against the other (nine female, two male) jurors. The belief is that he wanted to vote guilty. The jury reported to the judge that the holdout refused to follow the law regarding reasonable doubt, and the defense tried to have him removed. The judge refused. This morning, the judge declared a mistrial but gave defense one hour to get a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Predictably, the online discourse is off the walls. X lifts the holdout up as a hero, while Reddit believes he (we know it’s a male because the defense said so) is an MRA/red piller and needs to have his phone searched.
Personally, I think she’s guilty of premeditated, cold blooded murder. That said, I get the postpartum argument, but am horrified by the defense of her and holding her up as some kind of hero.
I saw a note on Substack claiming that Shiloh Hendrix was suffering from postpartum depression at the time of the altercation which landed her in hot water. I have no idea if this is true or not, but assuming it is, I imagine there's extremely minimal overlap between the people offering public (and, in some cases, financial) support for Clancy, and the people who think Hendrix should not have faced criminal charges for saying the gamer word.
An even more potent hypothetical, I think, is the observation that none of the women supporting Clancy would have done so if, in the throes of postpartum psychosis, she'd killed three dogs rather than three human children.
The slippery slope, my moral betters would have me believe, is a fallacy: legalising X does not inevitably lead to Y, which is like X but more extreme.
It's all well and good to think that we can draw a bright line in the sand and say that killing a fetus (up to and including a full-term viable fetus) is fine and dandy, but killing a baby outside the womb is not. I know that some high-decouplers can separate these into two completely distinct mental categories. But most people (as I'm sure you're aware, or you wouldn't be reading this) are not high-decouplers. Increased support for contraception inevitably leads to increased support for the morning-after pill inevitably leads to increased support for first-trimester abortion inevitably leads to increased support for full-term abortion – and, as the Clancy supporters demonstrate, for post-term abortion.
The Hendrix comparison is illustrative. One of the strongest surviving taboos in the Anglosphere is that white people should not say the gamer word. No excuses: not if they're singing along with a song by a black musician, not if they're a politician quoting something a black person said, not if they're an academic discussing a piece of classical music by a black composer whose title features that word, not even if they're a professor of linguistics using a word from a completely different language which sounds a bit like the gamer word. Woke people obviously feel that relaxing this taboo even a smidge would lead to an opening of the floodgates (almost like it's a... slope that is... slippery, or something). It follows that we cannot extend grace to any person who uses it, no matter how sympathetic they might be: not even a woman who may have been suffering from postpartum depression and who got into a public altercation with a nonce. This taboo is so rigidly enforced that not even the "be kind" brigade wants to extend any forbearance or forgiveness to Hendrix.
But compare with abortion. It started off with the morning-after pill, then first-trimester abortion, and before you know it, low-decouplers are correctly intuiting that, if a mother killing a fetus at nine months shouldn't be a hanging crime, why should killing a child at five years be? On what grounds can we possibly justify throwing someone in jail for doing the latter, but doing nothing to someone who does the former (perhaps even subsidising their decision at the taxpayer's expense)?
Louise Perry's "We Are Repaganising" continues to trouble me deeply.
This argument seems extremely silly to me. You might as well claim that the end game of people fighting over the thermostat in an office either want to go to 10000K or 1K, and that giving them a single degree will inevitably lead to a slippery slope where all life will perish.
In the real world, when someone is moving from NY to California, they almost never end up defecting to North Korea. If your model of US migration involves one pole in North Korea and another pole in France which both try to attract Americans, I'll wager that your model has little predictive value.
The reason why some people on the left took to defending Clancy is adequately explained by The Toxoplasma of Rage. In short, fighting for a cause (e.g. women) in clear-cut cases (e.g. women oppressed by the Taliban) has very little signaling value, because it is a cost-less signal to send. If you say "The Taliban should allow girls and women access to education", you will have >95% of the US political spectrum on your side. Nice to keep your friends, but totally useless to prove you are part of some in-group.
The Clancy case is great for signaling purposes. "I support women even when they murder their children" is a costly signal to send. Nobody (up to the Lizardsmen's constant) is thinking "this will make a great test case to establish that mothers are entitled to fillicide."
Well, no. This is a terrible analogy on the face of it, but that aside, we can observe that parents murdering their children has been totally normal (and legal) in any number of human societies historically. This at least should suggest that it's very possibly going to happen again once the impetus which put a stop to such behavior (Christianity) ceases to motivate people.
Considering the non Christian societies that exist now don't allow child murder I thin we'll be alright.
The ones that got totally curbstomped by Christian societies intent on enforcing Christian values, and who desperately recast themselves to be more palatable to Christian superpowers?
Yeah, I think if that pressure goes away, so too does the change in behavior. There's some inertia, sure, but there's no such thing as obvious universal human morality that includes such oddities as "don't kill your children" or "rape is wrong" or "everyone should be treated with basic dignity."
Also, plenty of Islamic societies absolutely do allow child murder, especially in cases of e.g. honor killings. Smart governments talk a lot about putting such things behind them, but that's playing to what they perceive as Western sensibilities. You know, like when they say "Jihad just means personal internal struggle, lol" or "These aren't slaves, they're guest workers benefiting from economic opportunity!"
No I think most societies had stopped routine exposure of infants the time of colonization. And places like China never made themselves pliable Western clients and they still don't have it.
There are dozens of independent moral codes that have come up with these rules, you don't need Jesus to ban these. Also when you look at the old Testament God gets pretty flexible on some of these.
And that's fucked up but killing a 15 year old for having premarital sex is an entirely different phenomena then infanticide' and I didn't say no place ever kills children just that I don't think we needed Christianity to end the practice given that o one does it anymore expect maybe some far out hunter gatherers.
This isn't just some line to feed Westerners. It's not like the Gulf Monarchs are pro-Jihad they try to get their own population to by it and work with the CIA to crush Islamists everywhere. And also while Jihad "just" meaning internal struggle is obviously overthrowing your Monarch who rules based on Shariah to implement some kind of theocratic republic or suicide bombing random "infidel" civilians are also pretty novel interpretations has history goes.
I'm not just talking about exposure of infants, and either way I disagree. The New World was absolutely rife with ritual child murder. Exposure was also very common in East Asia and India at time of European contact, especially for girls. Sub-Saharan Africa was ofc its own special hell. So, I'm categorically rejecting this one.
But honor killings are not just applied to teens. Check this case out.
I don't think so; and to the degree that this might technically be true it doesn't matter unless those moral codes were influential enough to stop the practices at scale, which they clearly were not. Where they did exist, they generally applied only to the ingroup. When it comes to rape, well, a lot gets lost in cultural understanding of what that means. But the Christian insistence that the woman must consent to a marriage is probably worth thinking about. And even if, hypothetically, several of these systems could have worked, we may observe that only one actually did.
I think we do. I think even in the West it's becoming a lot more popular without Christianity. Why would I expect non-Westerners to not do it when apparently even we can't manage that?
Because they are personally dependent upon their relationship with the West, yes, obviously. Do you think that rhetoric will hold longer than the very instant it is once again advantageous for them to rile their people up to take territory from the kafir? Has it ever, historically?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link